Content
76%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 highly actionable with fully executable commands and clear JSON contracts, and it is lean without over-explanation. Its main gap is the absence of an error-recovery feedback loop for the database write operations, which caps workflow clarity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean reference (schema tables, commands, JSON returns, terse usage rules) with no padding over concepts Claude already knows; it stops at 4 because a few prose lines in 使用规则 could be marginally tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Every command is fully executable with all flags and a documented JSON return shape (e.g. 'bd-record record-creator --platform … --creator-id …' returning '{"ok": true, "id": …}'), covering the common check/record cases copy-paste ready. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 使用规则 section gives a clear check-before-act sequence (check-creator → skip if exists → record-creator; check-post → skip if done → record-post), but for database write operations there is no error-recovery feedback loop when record-creator/record-post return '{"ok": false}', so per the rubric workflow clarity is capped at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized into clear sections (数据库位置, 表结构, 命令, 使用规则) and is self-contained; it does not reach 5 because the body is ~95 lines (not a simple <50-line skill) and the bundle scripts in ./scripts/ are invoked via a PATH wrapper rather than clearly signaled one-level-deep references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |