Content
85%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 well-structured, repo-specific instruction set with excellent workflow sequencing, explicit validation checkpoints, and a clean one-level-deep reference architecture. Its minor weaknesses are a few over-packed compound bullets and a couple of directives whose execution depends on reading a referenced file rather than the body itself.
Suggestions
Split multi-rule bullets (e.g., the orphan-link rule and the naming-distinction rules in 'Follow eve conventions') into shorter single-rule lines so each directive scans and trims faster.
Inline one minimal example of a well-formed doc section (opening, minimal example, rules) in the body so the feature-page shape is actionable without first reading references/content-types.md.
Make reference-dependent steps self-sufficient by naming the concrete action to take (e.g., 'Run the review passes in references/review-framework.md' → 'Run the five review passes in references/review-framework.md, fixing blockers before style nits').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with eve-specific rules and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what documentation is or how it works. A few compound bullets (the orphan-link rule, the naming-distinction rules) pack multiple rules into single sentences and could be trimmed or split, which matches 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place ideal of a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable: exact commands ('Run `pnpm docs:check`'), exact paths ('packages/eve', 'docs/meta.json', 'research/'), and exact public names ('defineAgent', 'eve dev', 'eve add channel/slack'). It falls short of fully copy-paste-ready coverage because directives like 'Run the review workflow' and 'Check changed prose against the prose-quality reference' require following a reference file to execute, and no inline example of a well-formed doc section is given. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 'Finish the change' is a 7-step numbered checklist with explicit validation checkpoints (re-read every changed page, verify each new technical claim against its source, search for contradictory statements, confirm inbound links) plus a concrete final verification command and error-recovery rules ('Never leave `[VERIFY]` markers'). Task routing in 'Choose a workflow' is unambiguous. This matches the clear-sequence-with-explicit-validation anchor rather than the 4 anchor, which allows minor validation gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an ~84-line overview whose 'Choose a workflow' section points to six purpose-labeled reference files (writing-workflow, editing-workflow, review-framework, style-rules, prose-quality, content-types), each verified to exist with real content. References are one level deep, clearly signaled by use case, and details are appropriately offloaded — matching the top anchor exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |