Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is an executable, well-structured research workflow with copy-paste commands and clean progressive disclosure to verified reference files. Its main weakness is the absence of explicit validation/verification checkpoints in batch operations such as scanning and backfilling.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after each batch step (e.g., after scan verify the event count and state-file append succeeded, and after backfill confirm no duplicate event IDs were inserted) to lift workflow_clarity above 2.
Include a brief validate-fix-retry feedback loop for enrichment, noting what to do when a news or market-regime JSON is missing or malformed (e.g., fall back to the NO_CLEAR_NEWS price-only record and log the gap).
Add a short output-verification checklist in the Output Format section so Claude can confirm each run produced the expected report and state-file updates before declaring success.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and code/command-heavy with no padding of concepts Claude already knows (e.g., no explanation of what a 20% mover is); the intro and boundary statements earn their place. It is not at level 2 because, despite minor overlap between the "When to Use" bullets and the frontmatter description, there is no unnecessary explanatory filler that would warrant tightening. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Six fully-specified bash command blocks with concrete flags, file paths, and parameter values (e.g. --min-abs-return-pct 20, --horizons 1,3,5,10,20) are copy-paste ready. It is not at level 2 because the examples are executable rather than pseudocode and include the key details rather than being incomplete. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five steps (scan, enrich, update-outcomes, summarize, backfill) are clearly sequenced, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or validate-fix-retry feedback loops. It is not at level 3 because batch operations like scan and backfill lack explicit verification steps; per the rubric guideline, missing validation in batch operations caps this dimension at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear ## Resources section points to one-level-deep references (methodology.md, event_schema.md, catalyst_taxonomy.md, scoring_system.md, cohort_mining_rules.md) and the CLI script, all of which exist as real files, with content appropriately split out of the overview. It is not at level 2 because references are clearly signaled and shallow rather than nested or poorly organized. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |