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 router-style body whose entire value depends on four reference files that are missing from the bundle, leaving it with no actionable payload. Fixing the bundle layout would lift most dimensions substantially.
Suggestions
Ship the four cited reference files (or correct the paths) — the skill currently routes users to reference/1-jwt-security.md, reference/2-expression-parser.md, reference/3-thread-pool-loop-util.md, and reference/4-chain-responsibility.md, none of which exist; also align the directory name with the bundle's references/ convention.
Remove the duplicated reference list: 延伸阅读 repeats the exact mapping already given in 快速指导 step 3, and 高信号规则 restates its routing rules — keep one canonical map.
Add one concrete inline pointer per topic (e.g., the key class or entry point for JWT and the expression parser) so the skill retains some actionability even before the reference files are opened.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence — no concept explanations, no padding — e.g., '工具组件应该优先复用现有实现，而不是重复造轮子'. Minor trims possible: the reference file list is duplicated between 快速指导 and 延伸阅读, and 高信号规则 partially restates 快速指导, keeping it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The topic-to-file routing table ('JWT：reference/1-jwt-security.md' etc.) is concrete, but the guidance dead-ends there: no usage specifics, commands, or examples are given inline, and every referenced file is absent from the bundle. This is 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' rather than mostly executable (4). | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 快速指导 gives a clear numbered routing sequence — classify the question, pick the topic, enter the corresponding reference doc, else switch to common-technical-practices / microservice-infrastructure — which is unambiguous for this simple router-style skill. No destructive or batch operations, so no validation cap applies; a 5 would require slightly crisper decision criteria for borderline cases. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is structured as a clean one-level overview pointing to four reference files, which would score well — but none of the cited paths (reference/1-jwt-security.md through reference/4-chain-responsibility.md) exist in the bundle, and the directory name 'reference/' does not even match the conventional 'references/'. Navigation fails at the root, so the disclosure structure cannot function. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |