Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a lean, actionable FAQ-collection skill with a concrete file path, command, and entry template. The main gap is that the multi-step append workflow lacks an explicit validation/checkpoint for the dedup step.
Suggestions
Make the dedup validation an explicit checkpoint, e.g. 'Read FAQ → grep for matching keywords → confirm no duplicate exists → only then append', so the destructive append is gated by a clear verification step.
Add a brief verification after appending (e.g., re-read the file to confirm the new entry landed correctly) to close the feedback loop on a batch/append operation.
Clarify the '有相似但更好则更新' branch with the concrete edit action (replace vs. merge fields) so the update path is as actionable as the append path.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient bold-labeled lines with no concept padding or fluff; every line earns its place and assumes Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a concrete file path, an executable `mkdir -p .cherry-assistant` command, and a copy-paste-ready markdown entry template with version/date placeholders. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The flow '问题解决→判断收录标准→读FAQ查重→无重复则追加→有相似但更好则更新' lists steps but the dedup/checkpoint is implicit rather than an explicit validation gate, capping clarity at 2 for a destructive append operation. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple sub-50-line single-purpose skill with no external references, organized into clear bold-labeled sections; per the simple-skills note this earns a 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |