Content
60%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-organized, concise routing skill with clear applicability boundaries and a sensible decision flow, but its entire progressive-disclosure architecture is unfulfilled: the four reference documents it routes to are missing from the bundle, and there is no substantive guidance to fall back on. Fixing the missing files (or inlining minimal guidance) is the single highest-impact improvement.
Suggestions
Add the four referenced files (reference/1-conditional-config.md, 2-event-driven.md, 3-service-communication.md, 4-i18n-logging.md) to the bundle, or remove the broken links and inline a minimal amount of concrete guidance per topic in SKILL.md.
Deduplicate the reference list: 快速指导 and 延伸阅读 repeat the same four links verbatim — keep the mapping in one place and reduce 高信号规则 overlap with 适用场景.
Make the routing criteria and sibling-skill boundaries more concrete: replace the hedged "如果问题更像...通常落在这里" with explicit examples of questions that belong to common-technical-practices or utility-components versus this skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the four reference links are listed twice verbatim (in 快速指导 and again in 延伸阅读) and 高信号规则 partially repeats 适用场景, matching the 'minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' anchor rather than the fully lean anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | There is a concrete topic-to-file mapping ("条件配置：`reference/1-conditional-config.md`" etc.) and explicit redirects to sibling skills, but none of the referenced files exist in the bundle, so the primary instruction cannot actually be followed, and beyond 'enter the doc' there is no executable guidance — fitting the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered 快速指导 gives a coherent routing sequence (identify scope → classify the question → enter the topic's reference doc → or redirect to common-technical-practices/utility-components), fitting the 'clear sequence with most checkpoints' anchor; it is not 5 because the routing criteria are hedged ("通常落在这里") and the sibling-skill boundaries are referenced but never defined. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Although the body's structure is good — one-level-deep, clearly signaled references organized by topic — scoring against the actual bundle shows no reference/ directory exists and all four referenced paths (`reference/1-conditional-config.md` through `reference/4-i18n-logging.md`) are broken, so the disclosure chain exists only on paper and navigation fails entirely, fitting anchor 2 rather than 3. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |