Content
75%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 a lean, well-structured decision lane with concrete commands, explicit validation, and a useful Common Mistakes checklist. It is held back from a 5 mainly by a small amount of backstory padding and validation loops that are implied rather than spelled out.
Suggestions
Make the validate→fix→retry loop explicit (e.g. 'if check-frontmatter fails, fix frontmatter and re-run until clean') to strengthen workflow clarity for the destructive push/commit path.
Trim the 价值门禁 backstory to a one-line rationale so every token earns its place.
Confirm the referenced scripts (check-frontmatter.mjs, check-feature-truth.mjs) exist in the bundle or note they are external, to close the actionability gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and information-rich throughout, assuming Claude's competence; the only padding is the 价值门禁 backstory paragraph, which could be trimmed without losing the rule. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (pnpm classify:co-creation-docs …, node scripts/check-frontmatter.mjs …, pnpm check:co-creation-docs-lane) plus decision tables and numbered steps, with minor gaps where referenced scripts are not in the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear intent → classify → deliver sequence with an explicit 验证 section and per-lane numbered steps; validation checkpoints are present though the validate→fix→retry loop is less explicit than ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single well-sectioned file with clear headers and no nested (2+ level) references; no bundle files exist to disclose into, so structure is appropriate with only minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |