Content
61%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-organized and token-efficient with appropriate progressive disclosure to a real reference file, but its guidance is conceptual rather than concretely actionable and lacks validation checkpoints in its workflow. Adding a worked end-to-end example or concrete build steps would lift the actionability and workflow scores.
Suggestions
Add one concrete, worked end-to-end example (e.g., turning a churn dataset into a stakeholder narrative) with specific data points and chart choices to lift actionability.
Surface the references/details.md link as a markdown link in the body and briefly preview what it contains (story frameworks, worked examples) so navigation is explicit.
For the narrative arc, add a short validation/checklist step (e.g., verify each stage answers the audience's 'so what') to give the workflow an explicit checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with compact tables, minimal code blocks, and no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows; only a slight restatement of the description in the intro. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides conceptual frameworks (story structure, narrative arc, three pillars) and do/don't lists, but the guidance is high-level rather than concrete executable steps or specific examples for common cases. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The narrative arc lists a sequence (Hook through Call to Action) but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops; steps are present but checkpoints are missing. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Body is an overview with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to the verified references/details.md file; structure is good, though the reference is prose rather than a markdown link. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |