Content
88%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 dense, actionable, and workflow-driven with a genuine validation checkpoint, assuming domain competence rather than explaining basics. Progressive disclosure is solid given there are no bundle files, with references cleanly separated.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Information-dense and assumes QA/ISTQB competence (equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, decision tables are named, not explained), with references cleanly in a footer; a couple of narration passages (e.g. the PractiTest statistic framing) could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete: an explicit six-field extraction checklist, a parameter-to-equivalence-class table, an exact boundary recipe (min, min-1, max, max+1), defined required matrix columns, and a full five-row worked example with stable IDs. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear four-step sequence (Extract → Enumerate → Emit → Integrate) with an explicit validation checkpoint in Step 1 that halts and requests clarification when actor/postconditions are missing, plus an anti-patterns table reinforcing correct execution. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly signaled sections with one-level-deep external references gathered in a References footer and cited inline; no bundle files exist, so references are URLs rather than a structured file tree, a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |