Content
61%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 concise, well-structured overview with good decision heuristics, but it functions as a stub: the two reference files it points to for script-naming rules and sharding strategy are missing from the bundle, and the workflow lacks explicit validation/rollback checkpoints for what is inherently risky database-change work. As written, a reader gets sound principles but no executable specifics.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced bundle files (reference/1-script-management.md and reference/2-sharding.md) or remove/inline the links — currently both references are dangling, so the script-naming and sharding detail the body promises is unreachable.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow for DDL changes: a concrete rollback step, a compatibility/gray-release verification gate, and a 'validate before applying to production' checkpoint, rather than listing rollback only as a pitfall.
Include at least one concrete example inline — e.g., the actual script naming format and version-directory layout, or a short sample DDL/migration script — so the guidance is executable even before the reference files are read.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~55-line body is lean bullet-style guidance with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (no "what is an index" filler); every section (适用场景/不适用场景/快速指导/高信号规则/关键陷阱) earns its tokens. Matches the anchor-5 'lean and efficient' example. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is directionally concrete ("先按查询路径设计索引" — design indexes from query paths first; the four table roles; the compatibility checklist) but missing key executable details: no naming-convention example, no script directory layout, no DDL example. The files that would carry those specifics (`reference/1-script-management.md`, `reference/2-sharding.md`) do not exist in the bundle, so the concrete detail is unreachable — matching anchor 3's 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 快速指导 gives a real 7-step design sequence (service ownership → table role → indexes → scripted DDL → compatibility → scaling decision → JSON-field justification), but this is a database-change skill where the rubric caps workflow_clarity at 3 without explicit validation checkpoints. Rollback/灰度发布 appear only as a pitfall ("只改 DDL 不评估回滚、兼容和灰度发布路径") rather than as an explicit validate-before-proceed step, so the cap applies. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned and correctly delegates detail to two one-level-deep references, but neither `reference/1-script-management.md` nor `reference/2-sharding.md` exists — there is no references/ (or reference/) directory at all in the bundle, so the navigation the skill depends on is broken. Scoring against the actual bundle structure, the promised detail is unreachable, which drops it to the minimal-structure anchor 2; it is not a 1 because the SKILL.md itself is well organized and the references are clearly signaled rather than buried. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |