Content
81%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.
A highly actionable, well-structured router skill with explicit multi-step workflows, validation checkpoints and a disciplined on-demand reference system. Its main cost is repetition: the schema/help/confirmation contract rules are restated several times across sections, making the 40KB body noticeably heavier than the same guidance needs to be.
Suggestions
Consolidate the confirmation→--yes rule into the 危险操作确认 section and reference it from 严格要求, Shortcut 原则 and Schema 字段速查 instead of restating it in each place; do the same for the leaf-help vs parent-help and 'never inject --all/full leaf into context' rules, which each appear 3+ times.
Move the Schema 字段速查 JSON block and the 'Helper-only 与本地 Cobra 命令' section into references/global-reference.md (or a dedicated schema-reference file), leaving the body with just the progressive-query ladder and the boundary table.
Break the run-on policy paragraphs (e.g., the Shortcut 总览 preamble and the 命令发现 intro) into short bulled rules so each directive is stated once and is scannable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and operational with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but core directives are repeated verbatim 3-4 times across sections (confirmation→--yes appears in 严格要求, Shortcut 原则, 危险操作确认 and Schema 字段速查; leaf-help precedence and 'don't inject --all/full leaf into context' are each restated in 3+ places). It is not 2 because nothing is conceptual padding, and not 4 because the duplicated policy passages in a 40KB body are a clear tightening opportunity. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Commands are copy-paste ready throughout: 'dws schema "calendar event create" --compact', 'dws event consume user_card_action_triggered --flatten -f ndjson', exact error fields ('error.reason == "confirmation_required"', 'retryable/retry_after_seconds/next_retry_at') and a concrete leaf Schema JSON example. It is not 4 because specific executable examples cover the common cases (routing, schema discovery, confirmation retry, event listening) with no material gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clearly sequenced 4-step core flow (URL precheck → intent classification → ambiguity clarification → product mapping → minimal-read), a 3-step confirmation gate with a full non-interactive retry protocol, and whiteboard flows with mandatory 'whiteboard render' preview / 'whiteboard +diff' validation checkpoints and explicit failure handling. Destructive and batch operations all carry validation (confirm → --yes, --dry-run preview, sourceDigest-guarded update), so the validation cap does not apply; it is not 4 because feedback loops (error → --verbose → report; diff blocked → stop) are explicit rather than implicit. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A dedicated '详细参考 (按需读取)' section, per-product reference table, documented scripts folder and an explicit minimize-reading policy give good structure, and spot-checks confirm referenced files (references/products/*.md, best_practices/ recipes, scripts/) exist. It is not 5 because some chains are two levels deep (SKILL.md → aitable.md → products/aitable/ with 28 sub-chapters, and dingtalk-tag-index → sub-pages) and some inline material (Schema 字段速查, Helper-only section) reads like global-reference content; it is not 3 because references are clearly signaled and the split is deliberate and navigable. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |