Content
88%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 tight, highly actionable investigation methodology with a clear sequenced workflow and built-in validation gates. The only notable gap is a broken external reference (original-texts.md is cited but absent).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence — the 用/不用 list, 6-step 操作规程, and fill-in template all earn their place — but the epigraph quote and the opening '实事求是' framing line are minor trimmable padding that keeps it just below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly actionable for an instruction-only skill: concrete steps naming specific sources (git log, blame, source/config/data, run, logs) plus a copy-paste-ready output template; per the scoring notes, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this concrete. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 6-step sequence with explicit validation gates — the 'unknown' column acts as a stop-gate ('禁止在未知栏非空且关系到结论时下定论'), and the '改判断不改事实' rule plus budget discipline provide feedback loops and a checklist matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections (用/不用, 操作规程, 输出模板, 纪律, 交接) with the supplementary source material pushed to a separate file, but the referenced original-texts.md does not exist in the bundle, so the one external reference is a dead link — a minor gap below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |