Content
56%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.
The body is a solid, highly actionable reference with executable TypeScript patterns for every covered API, but it is heavily padded: routing rules are stated three times and initialization boilerplate repeats in every scenario, and nothing is offloaded to bundle files. Actionable guidance and workflow are good (4), while conciseness (2) and progressive disclosure (3) drag the score down.
Suggestions
Collapse the Activation Contract, 'When to use this skill', and 'Summary' sections into a single routing block — they restate the same scope and do-not-use rules three times (~60 redundant lines).
Show the `tcb.init({ env })` / `app.auth()` boilerplate once in Scenario 1 and reference it from the other scenarios instead of repeating it in all eight code blocks.
Move the API-signature reference and the nine scenarios into a references/ file (e.g. references/scenarios.md), keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled links; also fix Scenarios 7-8 so the import/require style is consistent and executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Several padded, redundant sections: the Activation Contract ("Use this first when", "Do NOT use for", "Common mistakes"), "When to use this skill", and the closing "Summary" restate the same routing rules three times (~60 redundant lines), and the 3-line `tcb.init`/`app.auth()` boilerplate is repeated verbatim in all eight scenario code blocks even though Scenario 1 exists solely to show initialization. This matches anchor 2 (noticeably verbose, several unnecessary padded sections); it is above anchor 1 because the scenario sections themselves are lean and accurate, not beginner-concept filler. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, near copy-paste-ready TypeScript covering the common cases: `auth.queryUserInfo({ platform: "PHONE", platformId: "+86 13800000000" })`, `auth.createTicket(customUserId, { refresh, expire })`, plus concrete constraints ("Length 4-32 characters", allowed characters) and a canonical API-signature list. Not a 5 because Scenarios 7-8 mix `import` syntax with `require(path.join(__dirname, ...))`, which will not execute as-is in an ESM module — a minor executability gap matching anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | "How to use this skill (for a coding agent)" gives a clearly sequenced 5-step flow (clarify runtime/responsibility → confirm env and SDK → pick scenario → follow API shapes exactly → consult docs if unsure) with a checking rule ("If you see a method in older code that is not listed here... treat it as suspect") and try/catch error patterns in the scenarios. Not a 5 because there are no explicit output-validation checkpoints or feedback loops, which anchor 5 requires; it clears anchor 3 because the sequence is explicit rather than merely listed. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good section headers and clearly signaled one-level sibling references ("../auth-web-cloudbase/SKILL.md", "../http-api-cloudbase/SKILL.md"), but ~450 lines are fully inlined in a monolithic SKILL.md — the "Node Auth APIs covered by this skill" signature reference and the nine scenarios are exactly the material the rubric expects split into separate bundle files, and no references/ or scripts/ files exist. Matches anchor 3 (some structure, inline content that should be separate) better than 2 (structure and signaling are present) or 4 (most content is not appropriately placed in one file). | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |