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.
A well-structured, actionable canon with a clearly sequenced procedure and explicit failure handling. The main weakness is restated routing across three sections that could be tightened.
Suggestions
Consolidate the routing description: "Purpose", "Works with", and "Entry — pick the way in" each restate the same three ways in — keep the canonical list once and reference it from the other sections.
Inline a one-line summary of mode A vs mode B profiling inputs so a leaf can handle the common case without round-tripping to context/profiling.md, reserving the bundle for full detail.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and purposeful with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but routing is restated three times — "Purpose", "Works with", and "Entry — pick the way in" each list the same three ways in — which could be consolidated. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste-ready bash invocation for build_report_membership.py with full flags plus concrete cat commands for bundle files; the core profiling run is delegated to the bundle rather than inlined, leaving a minor gap. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The read & report procedure is numbered (1 run inline, 2 render, 3 end at decision) with explicit error-recovery checkpoints — "never fill a dashboard band with plausible numbers", the auth liveness gate, and routing to generate on an empty set. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into labeled sections and defers detail to one-level-deep bundle references (context/profiling.md, context/record.md) and a real script (build_report_membership.py, present in scripts/); the inlined shared canon is large but appropriate for leaves to compose with. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |