Content
80%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 tight, well-organized instruction skill with concrete file path, format template, and a clear workflow sequence. The main gap is the absence of explicit validation/verification checkpoints in the append workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step after appending (e.g., re-read faq.md to confirm the entry was written and the --- separator is intact).
Specify how to handle the dedup/update branch concretely — what counts as '更好' and how the update is performed (replace the block vs. edit fields).
Clarify the version field source (e.g., where to obtain vX.X.X) so the placeholder is unambiguous at execution time.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean bullet-style content where every line earns its place; no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, respecting token budget. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete file path, an mkdir command, an exact entry-format template, and dedup/update logic, but placeholders (vX.X.X, [通用化问题表述]) leave minor execution gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear arrow-sequenced flow is present (问题解决→判断收录标准→读FAQ查重→通用化追加→更新), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops after the file append. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no external references needed; content is organized into clearly labeled sections (收录标准/文件/条目格式/流程/搜索匹配/协作), satisfying the simple-skill exception. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |