Content
92%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 well-orchestrated overview: a dense stage table, a fully specified debrief workflow with halt conditions, thresholds, and floor rules, and clean one-level-deep disclosure into five verified reference files. The main trim opportunity is the repeated research citations and inline rationale for biases Claude already knows, which keeps conciseness at 4.
Suggestions
Cite each source once: Levashina et al. 2014 appears in the overview, debrief step 7, and the References section; anchoring and employment-interview sources are likewise cited both inline and at the end. Consolidate to a single citation point.
Trim the inline bias rationale in "Running the debrief" (the four-line anchoring explanation) to a one-line citation - the operational rule (refuse to start without independent pre-submission) stands on its own without explaining the bias.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and table-driven with no filler, but research rationale is repeated: Levashina et al. 2014 is cited three times (overview, debrief step 7, References), the anchoring explanation ("the first opinion revealed in a group setting has disproportionate influence on subsequent scorers") restates a concept Claude already knows, and the closing References section re-cites every inline source. Fits the 4 anchor (efficient, minor over-explanation that could be trimmed); not 5 because of this citation redundancy, and not 3 because the core guidance is lean throughout. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable rules throughout: "6-8 slots per interview", "5-8 competency dimensions per role", "flag any dimension with a spread greater than 1 point", floor rules ("any dimension at 1 is a no-hire regardless of totals; two or more dimensions at 2 is a no-hire"), and named halt signals (`INCOMPLETE_PANEL_SUBMISSION`, `MISSING_RUBRIC`) with required content. A panel could run the debrief directly from this file - full match to the 5 anchor for an instruction-only skill; not 4 because no step lacks the specifics needed to execute it. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The debrief is a 7-step numbered sequence with explicit validation gates: refuse to start without independently pre-submitted scores, halt with a named signal on missing submissions, flag >1-point spreads, resolve disagreements via gold-standard comparison, re-score on bias flags, and escalate BORDERLINE to the hiring manager rather than re-vote. Lock timing ("Lock artifacts at the start of a hiring round") and the stage table sequence the upstream chain. All checkpoints and feedback loops are present - 5, not 4. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The 177-line body is an overview whose stage table maps each of the six stages to one of five real, verified reference files (references/jd-author.md, interview-questions.md, rubric.md, calibration.md, onboarding.md), all exactly one level deep; only the runtime debrief workflow is deliberately kept inline ("this file, 'Running the debrief'"). Cross-links inside the references are sibling navigation, not nested content. Clear split and signaling - 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |