Content
75%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 content is well-structured, actionable, and concise with a clear diagnostic procedure and copy-paste commands; it stops just short of top marks due to minor over-explanation and implicit rather than explicit verification checkpoints.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and mostly efficient, using lists, a status table, and ini/bash blocks with little padding; only minor explanatory prose (e.g., restating that the skill is read-only) could be trimmed, keeping it just below a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready commands ("python3 \"$SKILL_DIR/ppt_doctor/check_environment.py\" --probe-search") with specific flags and an env config example, with only minor gaps such as the unset $SKILL_DIR convention and omitted probe-output-dir default. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear diagnostic procedure is sequenced (status table -> native tool inspection steps 1-5 -> call commands) with status-based decision points; the skill is explicitly non-destructive/read-only, so the destructive-cap does not apply, though explicit verification checkpoints before reporting are only implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clearly headed sections (配置, 检查内容, 原生工具有效性, 调用) with appropriately placed code and tables; no bundle reference files exist to navigate, and the body is a single self-contained doc that could split detail but is already well-structured, landing above the midpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |