Content
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content delivers a well-sequenced, validated research workflow with checklists, but it is weakened by placeholder-laden code examples, redundant cleanup instructions, and a core templates dependency that is neither bundled nor clearly disclosed.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated placeholder-cleanup guidance into a single authoritative step instead of restating it in 5.1–5.4.
Provide at least one fully executable file_write/file_update example with real values, or clearly label the blocks as templates to be filled.
Either bundle the templates/ directory and list the available template files, or remove the dependency so the skill is self-contained.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly actionable instruction with executable commands, but the placeholder-cleanup rule is restated across sections 4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4, adding redundant repetition that could be tightened; not score 3 because of this redundancy. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Script invocations (init_research.py, md_to_html.py) are concrete and executable, but the file_write/file_update code blocks are filled with placeholders ([标题]、[要点1]、{研究背景说明}) rather than being copy-paste ready, matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence with explicit gating ('获得用户确认后再继续', '3+ 可靠来源即可撰写', '检查通过后生成'), a feedback-oriented quality-check section, and a final checklist — matching 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps and checklists'. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Scripts are referenced by path and exist in the bundle, but the core templates/ directory is referenced only vaguely ('无需在此列出具体模板名称') and is not bundled, and most guidance is inline in SKILL.md, fitting 'some structure but could be better organized'. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |