Content
92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is an exemplary lean overview: no padding, non-obvious guidance on every line, a safety-critical cleanup workflow with explicit validation and interruption recovery, and well-conditioned references to two real, flat bundle files. The single gap is the absence of any concrete executable command for running or reporting test results.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean, imperative, and assumes competence: it never explains what Flutter or testing is, and every bullet carries non-obvious guidance ("Update a golden only after reviewing the rendered difference", bounded completion instead of unbounded pumpAndSettle). Anti-drift vs. anchor 4 finds nothing trimmable. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and names exact APIs and commands (pumpAndSettle, addTearDown, scoped git status), but no executable command is shown (e.g. a flutter test invocation) and verification defers to "the repository's established test command" implicitly, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The disposable-probe workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ("Confirm the recorded paths no longer exist and compare scoped git status with the pre-run state"), destructive-operation guardrails, and an interruption-recovery loop ("If execution was interrupted, inspect again rather than assuming cleanup ran"), satisfying the top anchor including feedback loops for a destructive context. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A ~48-line overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references carrying explicit load conditions ("Load [test layers and doubles](references/test-layers-and-doubles.md) when choosing boundaries, fakes..."); both referenced files exist and contain no nested references, so navigation is clean. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |