Content
53%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 body lays out an explicit, well-ordered five-step analytical workflow with genuinely skill-specific definitions (bad question vs. local-perspective question, first-goal identification, opportunity-cost requirements) that Claude could not infer on its own. Its main weaknesses are the total absence of an example of the final reconstructed question, redundancy between step 4 and the definition-standard section, and inconsistent section headers that blur the mandated step order.
Suggestions
Add one worked end-to-end example — a bad question, its type and first goal, and the final reconstructed high-order questions — so the deliverable's format is unambiguous.
Fix the section headers: number the '目标识别' and '高阶问题定义标准' sections consistently (e.g., as explicit sub-steps of steps 1 and 4) and normalize '# 输出：' to the same heading level, so the enforced 1→目标识别→2→3→4 order is visually unambiguous.
Merge the '高阶问题定义标准' requirements into step 4 (they largely repeat it) and drop the generic '识别方法' line; add a completion checklist as a validation step before output (e.g., every dimension has a comparison conclusion and a stated opportunity cost, and at least 3 higher-order question forms are present).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient instruction text, but the '高阶问题定义标准' section substantially repeats step 4's requirements ('涉及多维度决策逻辑，需超越单一维度或局部优化' restates '覆盖多维度决策逻辑的高阶问题'), and the generic '识别方法：通过分析用户问题背景，提取关键需求词' line explains what Claude already knows. Both could be trimmed. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | There is concrete guidance — explicit typology criteria ('仅聚焦二元对立判断（如"要不要做/买A"）'), fixed counts ('4-30个紧密相关的比较维度', '2-3个核心替代选项'), two worked first-goal examples, and an enforced ordering — but the key deliverable (the reconstructed high-order question) is never exemplified, and requirements like '分析需深入，避免表面化或片面回答' are vague. This is 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details', not the mostly-executable anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is explicit and enforced ('必须严格按照1→目标识别→2→3→4的顺序执行，不得跳步或简化任何步骤'), but there are no validation checkpoints (e.g., confirm each dimension has a comparison conclusion and explicit opportunity cost before proceeding), and the unnumbered '### # 目标识别' and '### # 高阶问题定义标准' headers break the numbered step sequence, blurring the mandated order. Anchor 4 requires most checkpoints present, which fails. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained ~50-line skill with no bundle files; all content is appropriately inlined with section headers and nothing belongs in a separate file. However, stray '# ' prefixes on '### # 目标识别' and '### # 高阶问题定义标准' plus the level-1 '# 输出：' header create minor organization gaps that keep it below the well-organized-sections bar for a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |