Content
81%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-engineered operational spec: unambiguous phased workflow, explicit validation and failure-recovery semantics, and honest refusal/integration boundaries. The main costs are redundancy (backup and dry-run rules repeated across sections) and placeholder-laden example outputs, plus a monolithic single-file layout for a fairly long body.
Suggestions
State the backup/dry-run/idempotency rules once (Key Rules) and reference them from the phases instead of restating them in Constants, Phase 2, and the Phase 5 report template.
Make Phase 4 validation concrete: give an explicit parse/field check (e.g., a jq or python one-liner against the state file) instead of '读 → 解析 → 应能成功', and replace '[...]' / 'X 字段' placeholders in the example outputs with real field names.
Move Examples and Refusals into a reference file (e.g., references/examples.md) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview, and confirm migrations/ and shared-references/ paths resolve from the shipped skill bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and operational — phase workflow, constants table, exact file paths — with essentially no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the score-4 anchor (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed). It does not reach 5 because the backup rule and dry-run behavior are each restated three to four times (Constants, Phase 2, Key Rules 1/4/5, Phase 5 report) and the three Examples partially replay the workflow already specified. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is mostly executable: the concrete backup command `cp .cheat-state.json .cheat-state.json.backup-$(date +%s)`, the atomic-write pattern (write .tmp → rename), the exact registry line format `LATEST_SCHEMA = "X.Y"`, and a fully scripted dry-run and final report template. It stops short of score 5 because Phase 4 validation is directional ("读 → 解析 → 应能成功") with no concrete check command, and Example dry-run outputs contain unfilled placeholders ("新增字段：[...]", "state 文件现在含 X 字段"). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 0–5 are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint (Phase 4 re-parse + schema_version == target + required-field check), an explicit failure feedback loop (stop at last successful version, tell the user where it stopped and that re-running resumes from there), forced pre-write backup, and idempotent re-entry via current_version == target. This matches the score-5 anchor (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops for error recovery), well above score 4 where checkpoints would have gaps. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good: a compact overview diagram, Constants, Inputs table, phased workflow, and clearly signaled one-level-deep references (migrations/registry.md, migrations/<from>-to-<to>.md, ../../shared-references/state-management.md) — matching the score-4 anchor. It is not 5 because the skill ships as a single ~230-line file with no bundle files, and sections that could live separately (Refusals, Integration, Examples) are inlined; the referenced migrations/ and shared-references/ paths also cannot be verified from the skill bundle itself. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |