Content
70%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 delivers a strong, well-sequenced audit methodology with concrete commands, explicit validation rules, and process gates — workflow clarity is excellent. Weaknesses are moderate redundancy between the step rules and the Common Mistakes table, and progressive disclosure that is only partially realized because the referenced refs/ files are missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Deduplicate rules that appear both in the step prose and the Common Mistakes table (primary-first sourcing, LLM-judge-as-algorithm, hash update, telemetry) — state each once and cross-reference the other location.
Include the referenced refs/report-template.md, refs/teardown-method.md, and refs/user-mind-evaluation.md in the bundle (or inline their essential content), since the body delegates the report template and the twelve audit lenses to files that are currently absent.
Tighten Step 2.5 and Step 5: the scoped-ledger and decision-vector passages can be compressed to bullet-level rules without losing the audit criteria.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly tight, domain-specific heuristics, but several rules are stated twice — primary-first sourcing (Step 0 item 6 and again in the Common Mistakes table), "LLM prompt judge 不是算法" (Step 3 and the table), and the hash-update/telemetry rules — and the Step 2.5 and Step 5 passages could be tightened. The duplication goes beyond the 'minor instances' of level 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands are provided ("git rev-parse HEAD", "find . -type d -empty", "rg", "pnpm check:skills"), a fixed clone path, and a field-level ledger spec for the required output. It misses 5 because key executable detail (report template, "十二个审计镜头 + 命令") is delegated to refs/ files that are not present in the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation rules ("断一环，就只能写'有 UX/telemetry/CRUD'，不能写'闭环进化'"), evidence anchoring (record commit SHA, paper/code/reproduction three-way diff), explicit unknown/not-applicable handling, and process gates (commit-then-pass, mandatory non-author review). Checkpoints and error-handling rules are explicit at nearly every step. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Headers are good and references are clearly signaled one level deep ("报告模板见 [refs/report-template.md](refs/report-template.md)…"), but scoring against the actual bundle structure: no refs/ files exist, so the referenced report template, teardown method, and user-mind evaluation are unreachable, and the detailed methodology (the 14-row mistakes table, the Step 2.5 ledger audit) remains inline where it arguably belongs in those separate files. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |