It's clear from reading the rules that the authors enjoy playing by them, but I found it very difficult to get any sense of how the game is actually to be played. In several places in the rules, I got the impression that the rules are more intended for player-vs.-player conflicts than for a team of players working together to engage in espionage against a common foe. There is a LOT of focus on developing the internal structure of the intelligence agency for which the agents work, but almost none on developing antagonists or scenarios.
The production values are good (not great, but good), but as I find to be all too often the case with self-published materials, more effort is needed in proofreading and editing, as there are too many instances of misspelled words, missing words, and even subject/verb disagreement (singuler/plural). No doubt in an effort to give the rules a spy-novel "feel", the rules are also jargon-heavy, but to a degree that makes the rules too opaque: e.g., the term "CON OPs" is used frequently, and I'm STILL trying to find a non-abbreviated use or definition for it.
I'm certainly not going to use these rules for my own espionage games, and I fear there's very little I'm likely to mine from them in terms of ideas to adopt and adapt to include in my games, either.