Content
82%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.
An unusually dense, disciplined operational rulebook: every line is an executable rule with exact identifier formulas, idempotency constraints, and explicit status-handling checkpoints. Its weaknesses are readability and completeness of error paths — dense multi-clause steps without headers, and some failure branches (e.g. a definitively failed job) defer to the worker skill rather than being spelled out.
Suggestions
Add one compact end-to-end example of a scheduled run (runKey → draft id → operationKey → get-job outcomes) to make the identifier lifecycle unambiguous without prose.
Break the multi-clause steps (2, 3, 6) into short sub-bullets or add section headers (账号选择 / 标识规则 / 状态处理) so the dense rules are easier to navigate.
Specify the handling for remaining get-job outcomes (e.g. a definitively failed publish) and for publish-draft errors, to close the error-recovery loop that step 5 only partially covers.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: 18 lines with zero padding, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every sentence carries an operational rule (e.g. '保存本次草稿时用 runKey + ":post-1"，新建不传 id'). It fully assumes the reader's competence and defers detail to the worker skill. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance: exact tool names (list-accounts, publish-draft, get-job, comment-video, claim-browser-job, finish-browser-job) and exact identifier formulas (runKey + ":publish-1", runKey + ":reply:" + commentId). Not 5 because parameter shapes, the worker-skill flow, and full end-to-end call syntax are deferred rather than shown, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered 1-6 sequence covers init (account selection), draft creation, publishing/reply key rules, conditional publishing, and channel selection, with explicit status checkpoints in step 5 (success → reuse receipt, running → wait, uncertain → report and stop writes) plus retry semantics, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply. Not 5 because steps 2-3 mix several rules into single sentences and the ordering of when get-job checks occur relative to each operation is implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single-file skill under 50 lines with no bundle files, so nothing needs splitting; the sole external dependency (douyin-ops-worker) is clearly signaled ('先读 douyin-ops-worker'). Not 5 because the body has no section headers and packs multiple rules per step, leaving minor organization gaps in an otherwise well-structured numbered rulebook. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |