Content
83%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, operationally precise skill body: clear phased workflow with validation and failure-resume semantics, concrete commands, and clean one-level references to external migration files. Its main weakness is mild verbosity in mock output blocks and that per-step migration execution relies on natural-language steps inside referenced files rather than literal code.
Suggestions
Trim the full Phase 1 dry-run and Phase 5 report mock-output blocks to abbreviated templates — the surrounding prose already conveys the structure, so the literal block text mostly repeats it.
Tighten the Examples section: 示例 2 is a near-duplicate of 示例 1's flow and adds little beyond illustrating a multi-step chain; one concise failure example plus one success example would carry the same information.
Make the per-step execution contract in Phase 3 slightly more concrete (e.g. a short pseudocode loop showing 'for (from,to,file) in chain: read HOW section → execute each bullet → write .tmp → rename → update schema_version') so the actionability of the core loop matches that of the backup command.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and operational with minimal concept explanation Claude would not need; a few sections (e.g. the full dry-run mock output, Phase 5 report block, and worked Examples) could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity, but overall it is efficient and every section earns its place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete executable guidance — an actual `cp .cheat-state.json .cheat-state.json.backup-$(date +%s)` command, atomic-write (write .tmp → rename) instructions, and explicit field-parsing steps — with minor gaps since the per-step migration execution is described as 'read markdown HOW section and follow natural-language steps' rather than literal code. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Phases 0–5 are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints (Phase 4 verifies parse + schema_version + required fields), clear failure/feedback handling (stop at N-1, fix and re-run resumes from breakpoint), idempotency, and a backup-before-write hard constraint — this is exactly the validate→fix→retry pattern the rubric rewards for destructive operations. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Overview/Constants/Inputs/Workflow/Key Rules/Refusals/Integration/Examples with one-level-deep references to real sibling files (migrations/registry.md, migrations/<from>-to-<to>.md, shared-references/state-management.md); the body stays an overview while per-step details live in external migration files. No bundle files exist in this skill, so structure is judged on the in-body organization, which is strong with only minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |