Content
82%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, highly actionable instruction skill: exact formulas, scored parameter tables, output templates, a skip/re-score decision branch, and an error-handling table. The main gaps are minor — a missing post-save verification step, some duplication between per-step display formats and the final output template, and inconsistent reference-path notation.
Suggestions
Add a verification step in §5 after saving: re-read the saved document and confirm the 预估工时/工时估算, 规模（size）, and 业务价值（RICE） fields were written before outputting the score summary.
Deduplicate the output formats: have §6 reference the display templates defined in §2–§4 (or vice versa) instead of repeating the field listings, and state the size/business_value decoupling rule once instead of in both the top blockquote and §4.
Harmonize reference paths — references/story-effort-baseline.md uses a bundle-relative path while size/RICE standards use ../references/ — and confirm the parent-bundle paths resolve from the sub-skill's install location, or move the inlined RICE methodology fully into rice-scoring-standard.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a dense procedural spec with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows (RICE is given as a formula and scoring tables, not an essay). Minor trimming opportunities remain: the size/business_value decoupling note appears both in the top blockquote and again in §4, and the §2–§4 display formats largely duplicate the field listings in the §6 output template — 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed'. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: exact formulas ("E=(O+4M+P)/6，四舍五入至 0.5h", "RICE 评分明细.Effort=E/8"), scored Impact (10/8/5/2/1) and Confidence (100/75/50/25%) tables, concrete size thresholds (≤5 常规, ≥8 建议拆分, ≥13 必须拆分), and copy-ready YAML/markdown output templates covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps with an explicit decision branch in step 1 ("三类评分产物均完整，且未要求重新评估 → 流程结束" / otherwise full re-scoring, with a rationale for not partial-filling) and an error-handling table with recovery paths. It falls short of a 5 because step 5 overwrites the original requirement document without any post-save verification that the 预估工时/规模/业务价值 fields actually landed — a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: a 参考文件 table lists all three references with purpose and read-timing, and references/story-effort-baseline.md exists in the bundle and is clearly signaled ("执行前必读"). Minor organization gaps keep it below 5: the path notation is inconsistent (references/story-effort-baseline.md vs ../references/size-difficulty-standard.md and ../references/rice-scoring-standard.md, the latter two outside this bundle), and the full RICE methodology is inlined in the body despite a dedicated rice-scoring-standard.md reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |