Content
86%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.
An exceptionally concise, well-structured destructive-removal playbook with a clear sweep workflow and verification step. The only gaps are that the final verification and one or two steps name an action without specifying the exact command.
Suggestions
Make the final verification concrete: name a specific check (e.g. `rg <name>` returns nothing, type-check passes, test suite green) rather than 'the narrowest honest verification'.
Add a short feedback loop after verification (e.g. 'If references remain, re-sweep and delete them; re-verify') to turn the destructive workflow into an explicit fix-and-retry cycle.
Optionally give one concrete example of the re-grep in step 4 (e.g. `rg -i '<name>|<alias>'`) so the sweep is copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient — ~52 lines of rules, sweep, smells, and bias with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly executable guidance with one real command ('Trace references with `rg`') and concrete enumerated targets, but 'Run the narrowest honest verification' leaves the specific verification command unspecified — a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 5-step Sweep with checkpoints (step 4 re-grep, step 5 verification) — validation is present so the destructive-skill cap does not apply — but the verification step is vague rather than an explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short self-contained methodology with well-organized sections (Rules, Sweep, Smells, Bias) and no need for external references; under 50 lines, so clear organization suffices for the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |