Content
50%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 sketches a sensible workflow (get ID, validate branch, fetch ticket, analyze, confirm, develop) with a few genuinely concrete commands, but it reads like a compressed outline: steps 2-6 are grouped and vague, the resources section is duplicated, and none of the cited reference files exist in the bundle. It needs cleanup and either executable MCP call examples or verified reference files.
Suggestions
Delete the duplicated '📦 可用资源' section and the trailing meta note — keep one reference list with clickable relative paths.
Expand 'Step 2-6' into individually numbered steps with at least one concrete MCP call example (parameters, expected response shape) or defer explicitly to mcp-calls.md with what to look up there.
Add an error-handling branch for the ticket fetch (e.g., MCP call fails, ticket not found, no comments) and ensure the four referenced files actually exist in references/ so the skill is self-contained.
Fix the step numbering ('Step 1', 'Step 2-3', 'Step 4-6') so the sequence is continuous and each step is separately defined.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient workflow text, but the '📦 可用资源' section is duplicated verbatim (identical 4-reference list twice) and a leftover meta line ('> 根据 SKILL.md 中的 IF-THEN 规则判断是否需要加载') pads the end. This is more than the 'minor instances that could be trimmed' of the 4 anchor, so 3 fits best. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | There are concrete elements ('git branch --show-current', the '#(\d+)' pattern, 'id.substring(2, 10)', and MCP tool names stories_get/bugs_get/tasks_get), but steps 2-6 are high-level direction ('调用 MCP 获取单据详情和评论', '按 dev-plan-template.md 生成方案') with no executable call examples or parameters. That matches the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A sequence exists with a blocking branch-validation checkpoint and a user-confirmation gate before development, but steps are compressed into 'Step 2-3' and 'Step 4-6' groupings that leave gaps, and there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do when the MCP call fails or returns empty). This is the 'steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are placed in a dedicated, clearly signaled section, but that section is duplicated verbatim, uses skill:// URIs rather than plain relative links, and the referenced files (branch-workflow.md, dev-plan-template.md, mcp-calls.md, tapd-mcp-guide.md) are not present in the bundle, so navigation is unreliable. This is 'some structure but could be better organized', below the 'minor organization gaps' of 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |