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.
A highly actionable, well-structured process skill: the prompt and output templates are copy-paste ready and the workflow is clearly sequenced with anti-anchoring checkpoints. The main weakness is conciseness — role definitions are repeated three times across sections and the anti-pattern list overlaps the not-for-use table.
Suggestions
Consolidate the three presentations of the role definitions (intro bullets, the 角色定位 table, and the 角色侧重 list in step 4) into a single authoritative table, keeping per-role emphasis only where it changes the sub-agent prompt.
Trim overlap between 不适合使用的场景 and 反模式 by keeping the redirect table for scoping and reducing the anti-pattern list to genuinely new failure modes.
Add a brief checkpoint after step 4 to verify each sub-agent response follows the four-part format before synthesis, closing the workflow_clarity gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The role definitions are presented three times (intro bullets, the "四个角色定位" table, and the "角色侧重" list in step 4), and "反模式" partially repeats "不适合使用的场景" — the content could be noticeably tightened, matching anchor 3. It is not anchor 2: most sections are functional and free of padding, and not anchor 4 because the triple repetition exceeds minor over-explanation. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance: a copy-paste sub-agent prompt template ("你是商业决策议会中的 [角色名]…不超过 300 字" with an exact four-part response format), an exact output template for the verdict, and concrete synthesis guardrails ("驳回外部观点时，必须说明理由", "最强的异见必须保留在报告中"). This matches the copy-paste-ready top anchor for an instruction-only skill; there are no meaningful gaps for the common case. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence with explicit checkpoints: clarify first ("如果问题模糊，先问一个澄清性问题"), strategist commits before reading others, wait for all sub-agents (anti-pattern: "不等所有subagent返回结论后，就匆忙下出结论"), and guardrailed synthesis. It falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no explicit verification that sub-agent outputs conform to the requested format before synthesis; it is clearly above anchor 3 since checkpoints are present and explicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, so the score reflects the single-file structure: well-organized sections (使用时机, 不适合使用的场景, 角色定位, 执行流程, 持久化规则, 多轮跟进, 反模式) with clear headers make navigation easy — matching anchor 4. It is not anchor 5 because the ~180-line body contains redundantly repeated role content that a tighter split or consolidation would address. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |