Content
73%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 delivers an unusually rigorous, well-sequenced verification workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and genuine Lean-specific failure-mode guidance, and it uses its reference files correctly. Its main costs are length and repetition — routing and cross-family-review rules are restated multiple times, and no concrete build/audit commands are shown inline.
Suggestions
State the reviewer-routing resolution once (either the opening blockquote or the 'Host execution and review' subsection) and point to the shared reference for the rest; the two passages currently repeat the same resolution order and unavailability rules.
Add one or two concrete audit commands (e.g., `lake build <module>` and `#print axioms <theorem>` with sample output) inline or in verification-and-handoff.md, since section 5 mandates printing types and transitive axioms but never shows how.
Merge the repeated cross-family/provisional-review rules (they appear in the core workflow, section 4, and section 5) into a single statement, trimming roughly a page of duplicated caveats.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Most lines are dense, high-signal domain policy rather than padding, but the reviewer-routing rules are stated twice (the opening blockquote and the "Host execution and review" subsection) and cross-family/provisional-review caveats recur across sections 4 and 5, so the body could be meaningfully tightened. It is above the noticeably-verbose anchor at 2 because nearly every rule addresses a real Lean-formalization failure mode. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is abundant — entry decision tables, a 7-step implementation loop with specific tactics (`#check` unfamiliar declarations, compile the affected then downstream module, diagnose the first relevant error), an executed-verification checklist, and a continuation-note template. It falls short of fully-executable because no example commands (e.g., `lake build`, `#print axioms <name>`) appear inline; command details are deferred to the reference files. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced (numbered sections, core-workflow diagram with A/B/C checkpoints), validation is explicit ("explicitly build the module that proves the target and print its type and transitive axioms"), and the implementation loop embeds a compile→diagnose→repair feedback loop plus an evidence checklist, exactly matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Deep operational detail is appropriately pushed to three real, clearly-signaled, one-level-deep references (adversarial-review.md, lean-working-loop.md, verification-and-handoff.md — all verified present), each introduced with when-to-read guidance. It misses the top anchor because the 360-line body itself carries substantial routing/policy prose (e.g., the 16-line reviewer-routing blockquote) that reads as inlined material belonging in the shared references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |