Content
88%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 concise, highly actionable, well-sequenced doc-audit workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and a useful pitfalls section, all self-contained without needing bundle files. Minor gains could come from optional external reference files for the longer tables.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence — no padding, no explaining what a config table or markdown is; every line (principles, steps, pitfalls) earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable — specific audit checklists, a topic→source-code mapping table, and a fix-type table — but it is instruction-style with no runnable code/commands, which is appropriate yet leaves minor gaps versus copy-paste-ready examples. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 0→5 sequence with explicit validation/acceptance checkpoints (step 5 验收), a confirm-before-scope-decision gate, and an error-recovery pitfall list; destructive/batch edits get the '就地修复' vs '先确认' distinction and re-numbering rules. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into focused sections (原则, 操作流程, 常见陷阱) with no bundle files needed; it is appropriately self-contained, though some reference material (e.g. the topic→source mapping or pitfall catalog) could optionally live in a separate reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |