Content
67%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 delivers a concrete, actionable archiving protocol with real tool-call examples, explicit post-write verification, and clear error-handling guidance. Its weaknesses are redundancy — repeated path templates, duplicated dual-track rules, identical JSON examples, and a tangential identity-file section — and a workflow spread across overlapping sections rather than one consolidated validated sequence.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated absolute-path template and the dual-track rules (stated in both 【归档路径规则】 and 【工具执行指引】) into a single section, and merge the two identical JSON examples into one.
Remove or relocate the tangential 【身份文件】 (SOUL.md/IDENTITY.md) section, which is unrelated to the archive workflow.
Present one consolidated end-to-end workflow (prepare → call archive → verify read-back → output card) with validation as an explicit checkpoint step, and include an example of the required markdown json-code-block output card.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is rule-dense with no explanations of known concepts, but includes several padded/redundant sections: the absolute path template is repeated about five times, dual-track rules appear in both 【归档路径规则】 and 【工具执行指引】 with two literally identical JSON examples, and the 【身份文件】 section on SOUL.md/IDENTITY.md is tangential to archiving. This sits between 'noticeably verbose' (2) and 'efficient with minor trimming' (4). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-pasteable guidance is provided: exact tool-call JSON ("{\"kind\":\"file\",\"sourcePath\":\"result.json\"}"), the plan-file parameter shape, exact absolute path templates, and explicit 'Archive blocked' error handling. Minor gaps keep it below 5: the two JSON examples (single file vs directory) are identical payloads, and the required final markdown json-code-block output card has no example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear numbered sequences exist (【目录归档模式】's 4-step folder flow and 【工具执行指引】's prepare→call→verify→handle-error flow) with an explicit validation mandate ("任何归档文件写入后，必须立即回读校验。未完成校验前，不得声称「已成功归档」") and an error-recovery loop for 'Archive blocked'. Not 5 because validation is partly delegated to the tool's automatic read-back rather than given as an explicit checkpoint step, and the workflow is scattered across overlapping sections instead of one consolidated sequence. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed; the body is self-contained with clear 【】-labeled sections covering boundary, path rules, directory mode, verification, and tool usage. Good structure with minor organization gaps (overlapping sections could be consolidated); the under-50-line exception to score 5 does not apply at ~95 lines. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |