Content
71%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 well-structured, actionable, and concise with a clear start-workflow and honest failure handling, but it references a bundled script that is not actually shipped and repeats a couple of admonitions. Fixing the missing script and documenting 'probe' would lift the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced scripts/ccv-projects.mjs (or remove the reference and inline the logic) — the current bundle is incomplete, which breaks the progressive-disclosure path.
Document the 'probe' subcommand with an example and where it fits in the workflow, since it appears in the usage line but is never explained.
De-duplicate the 'do not fake success / do not invent an address' guidance so it lives once, either in Capability two or in the Style section, to tighten conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean, operational body that delegates mechanical logic to the script and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; minor padding in repeated admonitions ('не видавай невдачу за успіх і не вигадуй адресу' appears in both Capability two and the Style section) that could be trimmed. Not a 5 because of that duplication; not a 3 because nothing is conceptually over-explained. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, copy-paste commands ('node scripts/ccv-projects.mjs list', '... start <dir>') plus an exact expected success output (a single address line) and specific failure-handling cases. Not a 5 because 'probe' is listed in the usage line but never illustrated, leaving one subcommand undocumented. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence for the key start flow (determine directory → run start → script auto-handles env cleanup, readiness, token decision → success returns one address line; failure → read stderr, explain, suggest ~/workspace fix), with an explicit error-recovery feedback loop. Not a 5 because validation is delegated to the script rather than surfaced as an explicit checkpoint, and 'probe' is unnamed in the workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good section structure and the design correctly pushes mechanical logic into one one-level-deep reference (scripts/ccv-projects.mjs), but that referenced file is not present in the bundle (no scripts/ directory exists), so the navigation target is missing. Per the guideline to score against the actual bundle structure, the broken reference caps this at 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |