Content
73%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 is a well-sequenced, highly actionable workflow with explicit gates, feedback loops, and termination conditions, and its file-based planning structure is concrete and executable. Its main weaknesses are redundancy — gating and closing-output rules are repeated across several sections, inflating token cost — and the absence of a worked example showing what a finished expert-persona answer looks like.
Suggestions
Consolidate the gating logic stated in 'Checklist 阶段', '执行步骤/门槛判断', and '输出格式' into one authoritative section, and collapse the three closing-output variants into one template with conditional placeholders.
Add a short worked example (a sample expert persona, one checklist question, and a skeleton of the final answer) so the expected output shape is unambiguous.
Trim ceremonial restatement of MUSTs ('必须' appears dozens of times) — state each rule once; a competent model does not need repeated enforcement.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The gating logic ('必须先澄清再回答') is restated across the Checklist 阶段, 执行步骤/门槛判断, Answer 阶段, and 输出格式 sections, and three near-duplicate closing-output variants are enumerated — clearly could be tightened. However, it does not pad with concepts Claude already knows, so it sits at anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but could be tightened') rather than 2, since the redundancy is structural rather than explanatory filler. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact file paths ('docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-research-<slug>-plan.md'), slug naming rules, a 9-item plan template, a structured output format with minimum counts, and verbatim closing blocks. It falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no worked example (e.g. a sample expert persona or checklist output) covering the common case. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step process is explicitly sequenced (执行步骤 1–6) with an explicit gate judgment ('若待确认问题非空 → 停止在 Checklist 阶段'), a feedback loop (二次澄清→重答 with same-path file updates), and a precise termination condition ('当且仅当 "我还需要你补充的信息" 为空或写明 无'). This matches anchor 5: clear sequence, explicit validation checkpoints, and a feedback loop for recovery. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the single-file skill is organized into well-labeled sections (文件落点, Checklist 阶段, Answer 阶段, 输出格式, 约束, 收尾要求) with everything at one level. It fits anchor 4 ('good structure; minor organization gaps') — the repeated stage rules and closing variants could be consolidated — but there is no content that clearly demands extraction to separate files. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |