Content
47%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 content is highly token-efficient but functions as a dense keyword list rather than actionable guidance: no runnable commands, no sequenced workflow with validation, and no file structure to navigate.
Suggestions
Add concrete, copy-paste-ready commands for the named tools (e.g. an Etherscan getsourcecode API call and a slither CLI invocation) instead of listing only tool names.
Sequence the auditing workflow into numbered steps with validation checkpoints (run slither -> review findings -> confirm with manual check) so the destructive/batch nature is guarded.
Split the dense block into section headers (源码审计 / DeFi / 跨链桥 / RPC) or move detail into reference files so the overview is navigable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean bullet-style attack-surface list with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It names tools (Etherscan, slither/mythril/manticore) and attack classes but gives no executable commands, code, or concrete steps to run them, leaving only high-level hints. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Rough categorization is present but there is no sequenced workflow and no validation checkpoints for an inherently destructive/batch-oriented attack skill, so the destructive-operation cap is not even reached. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a single monolithic code block with no section headers, navigation, or referenced bundle files (none exist), so structure and discoverability are minimal. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |