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.
The body is concise, well-structured, and actionable with concrete commands and a real safety checkpoint for the batch apply step, with only minor gaps around placeholder commands and the absence of a full retry loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Contract, Commands, Routing, guardrail) earns its place and the quality_gap=0 clarification adds genuinely non-obvious state semantics. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable command templates with arguments and explicit routing rules, but uses placeholders (<autoresearch-cli>, <slug>, <goal>) rather than literal runnable commands, leaving a minor gap below fully copy-paste-ready. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An implicit setup→list→candidates→apply→route sequence is present with an explicit validation gate ('Use gap-candidates --apply only after inspecting the candidates and deciding the write scope is safe'), but it lacks a numbered sequence and a full validate→fix→retry loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with no bundle files, organized into clearly labeled sections (Contract, Commands, Routing) with no nested references, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |