Content
76%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 lean, well-structured, and actionable, but lacks validation checkpoints for its batch EDA workflow and points to three reference files that are not present in the bundle.
Suggestions
Add a verification step after the EDA run (e.g., confirm eda_hub.html was generated and spot-check a claim chart) to introduce a feedback loop for the batch operation.
Either include the referenced files under references/ (eda.md, charts.md, reports.md) or remove the dangling read-order pointers so navigation is not broken.
Fill in the single-mode command examples instead of using '...' ellipsis so each variant is directly executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient throughout: short labeled sections, runnable command snippets, and a single import line, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every section earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready commands and a real Python import, but the single-mode examples use '...' ellipsis and placeholder arguments (DB, DIR, WS, HID), leaving minor gaps for full execution. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence exists (stage triggers, read order, report embed) but there are no validation or verification checkpoints, and the EDA run is a batch operation over a DB — the rubric caps batch workflows without validation at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized with a signaled one-level-deep read order, but it references references/eda.md, references/charts.md, and references/reports.md, none of which exist in the bundle — a real navigation gap that keeps it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |