Content
43%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 brief, non-verbose overview that points to (nonexistent) reference files, but it fails as working guidance: the multi-step workflow is unelaborated labels, only one step has supporting code, and the navigation section is redundant and dangling. The skill reads as a stub whose real content was expected in the missing reference files.
Suggestions
Expand the four-step workflow into concrete sub-steps with an explicit validation or test checkpoint after integration (e.g. what to verify in MessageContainer before proceeding), instead of a single arrow diagram of bare labels.
Add executable code for steps 2-4 — a minimal component definition, the MessageContainer integration snippet, and a test/verification command — so the main flow is instructable from the body, not just step 1.
Fix navigation: remove the duplicated '📦 可用资源' section, annotate each reference with what it covers (e.g. 'API reference: see api-reference.md'), ensure the referenced files actually exist in references/, and either add the promised IF-THEN loading rules or delete the note citing them.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core content is lean with no over-explanation, but the entire '📦 可用资源' reference list is duplicated verbatim (lines 49-55 and 59-67) and a note references 'IF-THEN 规则' that do not exist in the body — clear waste that needs tightening, so not 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Real TypeScript snippets exist for type extension and useMessageSlotId, but the workflow's core steps (create component, integrate into MessageContainer, test) have no code or specifics — the skill describes rather than instructs them, fitting 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'; not 4 due to these key gaps. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The flow is a single arrow diagram of bare step labels ('1. 声明类型扩展 → 2. 创建组件 → 3. 集成到 MessageContainer → 4. 测试') with no elaboration, commands, or validation checkpoints — structurally identical to the anchor-2 example '1. Open the document / 2. Make changes / 3. Save and close'. Not 3 because checkpoints are not even implicit and only step 1 has any supporting detail. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body has a sensible overview shape with sections and one-level references, but the reference list is a bare unannotated dump (no per-topic signaling), is duplicated, points to files that do not exist in the bundle (no references/ directory present), and the promised IF-THEN loading rules are absent. Not 2 because nothing that belongs in separate files is inlined. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |