“The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

I quote from the Westminster Confession’s chapter on God’s covenant. I don’t think we learn anything additional from the rest of the Westminster documents except that the name, “covenant of works” is not the only name one can use (if someone notices something I’ve missed, let me know). Perhaps we should also say the representative nature of the covenant is affimed outside the paragraph above. That too would be part of the doctrine.

To affirm the traditional doctrine of the Covenant of works then one must affirm and only affirm that

1. There was a covenant made with Adam that is now superseded.
2. That this was the first covenant with man.
3. That Adam’s and Eve’s works were acceptable to God.
4. That life was promised to Adam (and to him as a public person, not to himself alone but to his posterity)
5. That Adam would forfeit this promise and be eternally condemned (not only for himself but also for his posterity) if he refused to give God perfect and personal obedience as the condition for the covenant.

When considering whether someone teaches the covenant of works in an orthodox manner, it might be helpful to keep the traditional baseline in mind.