Content
65%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 well-structured, mostly actionable body that names tools and paths concretely. It loses points for missing validation/feedback loops on batch/destructive operations and for referencing scheduling.md files that do not exist in the bundle.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/feedback checkpoints for batch and destructive operations — e.g., a "validate before write" step for scheduled batch runs and DB init, with a fix-and-retry loop — to lift workflow_clarity above 3.
Either include the referenced scheduling.md (and any other linked bundle files) in the references/ directory, or remove/inline the dangling references, so progressive disclosure is not broken.
Trim the duplicated naming-convention guidance (the "don't treat resource names as paths" rule appears in both 资源命名约定 and 工具清单) to improve conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with tight tables and bullets; minor redundancy such as "不要把工具名拼成路径" restated across sections keeps it just below lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool names and commands (bd-record, rss-reader, xianyu-ops), DB paths (db/bd_record.db), and directives (call init-db if missing) give executable guidance with only minor gaps like example invocations. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are tabulated with triggers but step sequences are delegated externally; batch/destructive ops (scheduled runs, DB writes) lack explicit validation/feedback loops, which per scoring_notes caps this at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-sectioned body with signaled references to scheduling.md, but those referenced files are not present in the bundle (no references/ dir), so the overview-to-details structure is partially broken. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |