Content
62%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 a strong, highly actionable workflow with excellent validation and feedback loops, but it pays for that with real verbosity: duplicated hook-handling instructions, remedial markdown formatting guidance, and long inline templates that belong in reference files. Deduplicating and moving templates to references would raise both conciseness and progressive disclosure without losing actionability.
Suggestions
Replace the duplicated hook procedure in step 9 with a one-line reference to the Pre-Execution Checks section (parameterized only by the hooks key: before_specify vs after_specify), cutting ~25 lines.
Move the requirements checklist template and the clarification-question format into separate reference files (e.g., references/checklist-template.md, references/clarify-format.md) and link to them from the workflow.
Delete the markdown table formatting instructions (pipe spacing, dash counts, 'test in markdown preview') — Claude already knows how to format tables.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The entire extension-hook procedure (enabled filtering, condition handling, dot-to-hyphen conversion, optional/mandatory output templates) is duplicated nearly verbatim between the Pre-Execution Checks section and step 9 (~30 redundant lines), and it spends lines teaching markdown basics Claude already knows ("Use consistent spacing with pipes aligned", "Header separator must have at least 3 dashes", "Test that the table renders correctly in markdown preview"). This matches the 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' anchor. Not a 3 because the duplication and remedial formatting instruction are substantial, not incidental. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is highly concrete and executable: exact paths (.specify/extensions.yml, .specify/templates/spec-template.md, .specify/feature.json), a resolution-order algorithm for the feature directory, a literal JSON payload with an anti-pattern warning, copy-paste hook output templates, and worked examples of good/bad success criteria. Not a 5 because a few operations are described rather than given as commands (e.g., copying the spec template, scanning specs/ for the next sequential number). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 9-step flow with an explicit validation checkpoint (step 7: build a quality checklist, review pass/fail, re-run validation with a max-3-iteration loop and documented escalation), question-numbering rules, and explicit error exits ("No feature description provided"). This matches the top anchor: explicit validation steps, feedback loops for error recovery, and a checklist for a complex process. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section headers are sensible, but this is a monolithic 300+ line document with no reference files: the 35-line requirements checklist template, the clarification-question template, and both hook output templates are inlined where separate reference files would serve. This fits 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'. Not a 2 because the document is genuinely well-sectioned, not an unstructured or buried-reference wall. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |