Content
70%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.
A well-sequenced, genuinely actionable planning workflow with strong validation and error-recovery handling. Its weaknesses are redundancy (duplicated venue/page-count rules), an off-topic preamble blockquote, and a monolithic structure with unresolvable external references instead of a real reference bundle.
Suggestions
State the MAX_PAGES/venue-counting and citation-style rules once (either Constants or Key Rules) instead of repeating them in both sections, and remove the Codex-reviewer blockquote that is unrelated to paper planning.
Create a references/ bundle (e.g., venue-page-limits.md, citation-rules.md) for the venue tables and citation conventions currently inlined, replacing the unresolvable ../shared-references/* pointers.
Make Step 6's follow-through concrete: specify how to apply reviewer feedback (e.g., which outline sections to re-check, when to run a second review round) instead of 'Apply feedback before finalizing'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow is mostly lean procedural instruction, but the MAX_PAGES/venue-counting rules are stated near-verbatim in both the Constants section and Key Rules, and the opening blockquote about Codex reviewer installation is unrelated to the paper-planning task — clear tightening opportunities that match the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance dominates: exact input filenames with fallback paths, a specified MCP review call with polling instructions, and a copy-ready output template with table formats. Minor gaps remain — 'Apply feedback before finalizing' and citation-plan steps lack executable specifics, and the section templates are placeholder scaffolds rather than worked examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation and error-recovery: the REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE verdict handling branches on assurance level, Step 6 is a review-validation checkpoint whose feedback must be applied before output, and the large-file Write-failure fallback is specified. This matches the anchor requiring explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is monolithic: no bundle files exist in references/, scripts/, or assets/, and the referenced ../shared-references/* and ../../shared-references/* paths do not resolve. Venue page-budget tables, venue citation norms, and citation rules that clearly belong in a separate reference file are inlined, fitting the 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |