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 is an actionable, well-sectioned archive protocol with executable tool-call examples, a validation checkpoint, and an error-handling loop appropriate to its destructive move semantics. Its main weakness is redundancy — path templates and the core mandate are repeated across sections.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the absolute-path template: state the boundary once and reference it from later sections instead of repeating the full path each time.
Collapse the opening "只要当前任务需要写入任何文件" line, which duplicates the frontmatter trigger, into a single one-line scope statement.
Add one complete plan-edit example (edit archives/{ARCHIVE_ID}/PLAN.md after archiving) to close the actionability gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with no concept padding, but the absolute-path template and the "全量归档/必须执行" rule are restated across multiple sections and the opening line repeats the frontmatter trigger, so it could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready tool-call JSON for both file and directory archiving plus concrete path templates and a specific "Archive blocked" error branch, with only minor gaps (no full plan-edit example). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The directory-archive flow is explicitly sequenced and includes a post-write readback validation checkpoint and an error-handling feedback loop; the destructive-move context is covered, though the error loop defers to the user rather than a fix→retry cycle. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single self-contained file with clearly headed sections (核心规则, 绝对路径硬性边界, 归档路径规则, 目录归档模式, 写入后强制校验, 工具执行指引) and no nested references; minor organization gaps keep it below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |