Content
92%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A lean, highly actionable tool-wrapper body with a clear single-action workflow and explicit error recovery, held back only by a monolithic single-file structure that inlines reference-grade detail.
Suggestions
Move the full return-shape JSON and the behavior-diagnostics shape into a references file (e.g. references/return_shape.md), keeping a concise summary + link in SKILL.md.
Move the Chinese report templates into references/report_templates.md and signal them with a one-level-deep link.
Retain the Usage, error-handling, and presenting-guidance sections inline — those are the core decision logic Claude needs at call time.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense reference material (tool-call examples, return shapes, report templates, detection thresholds) that assumes Claude's competence and explains no basic concepts; not score 2 because there is no padded explanation to tighten — every section adds concrete value. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives copy-paste-ready tool invocations with concrete parameters ('analyze_trade_journal(file_path=..., analysis_type=..., filter_expr=...)') plus exact return shapes and filter syntax; not score 2 because guidance is fully executable rather than pseudocode or abstract. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The single action (call the tool) is unambiguous, followed by an explicit present-results sequence with conditional checks (win_rate<0.4 AND profit_loss_ratio<1.0) and a dedicated error-handling section with recovery feedback loops; not score 2 because validation/decision checkpoints and error recovery are explicit, and the operation is read-only so the destructive-cap does not apply. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections with no nested references, but the ~200-line body keeps detailed material (full return-shape JSON, two report templates, behavior-diagnostics deep-dive) entirely inline rather than split into reference files; not score 3 because content that could be separate is not split, and not score 1 because structure and navigation are good with no deep nesting. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |