Content
81%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.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced audit procedure with deterministic rules, explicit validation checkpoints, and a concrete output contract. Its main weakness is token efficiency: lengthy rationale prose and repeated boundary statements inflate the body beyond what the executing model strictly needs.
Suggestions
Trim the convention-justification paragraphs in Steps 2-4 (the 10/25-point cuts, the 2/5/15% flake bands, the 10% ROI flag) to the cut values plus a one-line rationale each; the model only needs what to apply, what to report, and a short reason it can argue with.
Move the inline source quotations and the References index into a references file (e.g. references/sources.md), keeping one-line citations in the body, so the body carries only procedure.
Consolidate the repeated boundary statements — the ownership table in the opening section, the 'Not decided here' output section, and the 'Keep the last section even when it feels redundant' note — into a single boundary discussion referenced from the output template.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core machinery is tight ('First match wins' tier table, severity bands, verdict matrix, output template), but long justification prose — e.g. the 10/25-point cut rationale, the 2/5/15% flake-band reasoning, and the ROI 10%-cut defense — plus repeated boundary reminders could be tightened. It is more than 'minor instances' of over-explanation (4) but does not pad with concepts Claude already knows (2). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Deterministic classification rules with exact path and import patterns, a concrete formula ('roi(layer) = defects_caught(layer) / total_run_minutes(layer)'), numeric thresholds with units, a first-match-wins verdict table, and a copy-paste output template fully specify what to compute and emit. Worked examples covering the common cases exist in the real references/examples.md. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five ordered steps each carry explicit checkpoints: report 'a confidence figure, not just a count', the 80% classification floor, 'not assessed' semantics per axis, and an un-assessable conditions table requiring you to 'name the specific input that would unlock it'. This is an analysis skill, not a destructive or batch operation, so the validation cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single bundle file (references/examples.md) exists, is clearly signaled in a dedicated section, and is one level deep, with clean section headers throughout the body. It falls short of 5 because the ~300-line body keeps all convention-reasoning and the source-quote index inline rather than splitting more content into references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |