Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
Highly actionable and well-structured with a clear sequenced workflow and correct one-level-deep reference usage. The main weakness is conciseness: the equivalent-mutant undecidability theme is repeated across several sections and Step 5's prose could be tightened.
Suggestions
State the undecidability of equivalent mutants once in Step 5 and reference it from Step 2 and Limitations, rather than restating the full argument in each place.
Condense the score-convention subsection in Step 5 to the two named conventions and the one-line rule ('state the convention every time; never compare scores across conventions'), dropping the surrounding explanatory prose.
Trim the Limitations section to points not already covered inline (e.g., remove the reiterated heuristic-classification and undecidability bullets).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Specialized and mostly tight, but the undecidability-of-equivalent-mutants point is restated across the description, Step 2, Step 5, and Limitations, and Step 5's citation-heavy prose could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a TypeScript interface, concrete original/mutant code pairs per mutator family, a named separating input, and a copy-paste-ready Step 4 test block, matching fully executable guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear five-step sequence with Step 2 ordering the classes, a four-point Step 4 completeness checklist, re-run feedback loops, and a spec-confirmation checkpoint before changing either side. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Verified references/tool-normalization.md exists and is one level deep, holding the bulky per-tool field and operator tables while the core triage logic stays inline with two clearly signaled links. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |