Content
77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a tight, well-sequenced four-gate workflow with strong conciseness and clear verification checkpoints. Its main gap is actionability (policy over executable examples) and unresolved external references that are not actually bundled.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, executable example (e.g. a state-matrix snippet or a token-replacement CSS snippet) to lift actionability from policy to copy-paste guidance.
Either bundle the referenced refs/f190-frontend-lessons.md and docs/architecture/feature-placement.md files or remove/inline those citations so progressive disclosure is genuinely one level deep.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and dense: short gate definitions, compact tables, and no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete rules and thresholds (20/350 line split, state matrix dimensions, redacted-placeholder separation) but largely describes policy rather than executable code/commands, so guidance is actionable-in-principle but not copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-gate sequence (Product → Design-System → Implementation → Verification) is an explicit ordered workflow with a final verification gate that requires evidence (golden path, non-happy-path, sibling sampling, dark/mobile checks), providing clear checkpoints and feedback expectations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is clean with a 参考 section pointing to two references, but those referenced files (refs/f190-frontend-lessons.md, docs/architecture/feature-placement.md) do not exist in the bundle, so navigation is signaled yet unresolved. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |