Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content provides concrete, mostly-executable code organized into two clear steps with good parent-workflow navigation, but it leaves `data` undefined, relies on placeholder columns, and lacks any output-verification checkpoint. Conciseness is good though slightly padded with inline examples.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation/feedback loop after the Excel write — e.g. verify the file exists and is non-empty, and instruct to retry on failure — to lift workflow clarity.
Show how `data` is obtained (read from the parent workflow or load the .xlsx) so the snippet is copy-paste runnable, and replace placeholder column names with a brief note on where actual names come from.
Trim the inline '示例' comments and the '默认输出前100行' fallback, or move them to a clearly marked optional section, to tighten token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean code with little prose, but scattered inline '示例' annotations and a loose fallback ('默认输出前100行作为示例') could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Real Python is provided rather than pseudocode, but `data` is never defined (assumed from the parent workflow) and column names are placeholders like 'numerator_col', so it is not copy-paste executable as written. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Step1 and Step2 give a clear sequence, but there is no validation checkpoint or feedback loop on the Excel-write step; per the guidelines a batch write operation without verification caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This short single-purpose skill is self-contained with two clearly labeled sections and a clearly signaled one-level reference to the parent workflow SKILL.md, satisfying the simple-skill allowance. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |