Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-sequenced, and builds in a strong confirmation checkpoint for the risky menu-update operation. Its main weakness is actionability: command names appear without invocation syntax, arguments, or examples.
Suggestions
Add a brief invocation signature or one example call per command (e.g. pagination parameters for `list-followers`) so the guidance is copy-paste ready.
Clarify what '有界分页' concretely means — specify the page size or pagination parameter to use.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean four-step list with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line carries actionable instruction, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It names concrete commands (`list-followers`, `get-menu`, `update-menu`) and behavioral constraints, but gives no invocation syntax, arguments, or example calls, leaving key execution details missing. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–4 are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint (show existing vs. proposed menu, then require user confirmation before `update-menu`), exactly the before/after gate the rubric rewards for a destructive menu update. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references; the numbered steps are well-organized, which the scoring notes allow to score 3 without separate files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |