Content
60%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 presents a clear, well-sequenced 8-step analysis workflow with good safety boundaries and an explicit validation step, but its core algorithm is unexecutable pseudocode and it carries minor padding (a duplicated overview and a dated version footer). It is a solid mid-to-good skill whose main gaps are executable detail and a missing validation feedback loop.
Suggestions
Replace the pseudocode risk formula with executable Python (real variable names, defined inputs) so the scoring step can be run directly.
Add a validation feedback loop: specify concrete checks (e.g., age ranges, relationship rules) and what to do when validation fails before proceeding to risk calculation.
Remove the '技能版本/最后更新' footer and the '技能概述' section that duplicates the description, moving any needed detail into a references file to keep the main body lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient lists, but the '技能概述' section restates the frontmatter description nearly verbatim, and the '技能版本: v1.0 / 最后更新: 2025-01-08' footer is time-sensitive metadata that penalizes conciseness per the guidelines. Not 4 because the duplication and date/version footer are noticeable padding, though limited in extent. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete elements exist (specific data file paths, a JSON suggestion example, named report components), but the central risk-scoring formula is pseudocode with Chinese variable names that cannot execute, and report generation has no code or commands. This matches the 'pseudocode instead of executable code; missing key details' anchor rather than the mostly-executable level of 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Eight steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation step (步骤3 数据验证与清洗), matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery path when validation fails and validation criteria (关系完整性, 年龄合理性, 数据一致性) are named without thresholds or procedures; not 3 because a validation checkpoint is explicitly present rather than implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-sectioned single file with no nested or buried references, and at ~130 lines nothing clearly belongs in a separate file, matching 'good structure; most content appropriately placed'. Not 5 because there is no reference structure at all — details like report templates or the fixed disclaimer text could be offloaded to one-level-deep reference files to slim the main skill. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |