Content
50%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 well-structured and rich in domain-specific content Claude does not already know, but it is a monolithic feature catalog with pseudocode data operations, no validation feedback loops, and no progressive disclosure to separate reference files. Splitting reference data out and adding concrete validation steps would lift the lower-scoring dimensions.
Suggestions
Move stable reference data (per-region risk tables, drug-interaction pairs, vaccine schedules, output templates) into references/*.md files and link to them one level deep to improve progressive disclosure.
Replace the pseudocode 'Read:'/'Write:' data operations with real, executable tool invocations and add an explicit validate-then-retry feedback loop for writes.
Trim the redundant '使用示例' section (it restates the feature list) and condense the long markdown output templates to the essential fields.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but ~420 lines with long output templates and a redundant '使用示例' section that re-lists capabilities already covered in the feature sections could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete output templates (markdown/JSON) for each feature, but the '数据文件操作' section uses pseudocode ('Read: ...','Write: ...') instead of real tool calls and the '数据结构验证' section lists validation criteria without any executable command or implementation. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Features are enumerated with input/output specs, but it is a catalog of seven independent capabilities rather than a sequenced workflow, and write/validation operations lack explicit feedback-loop checkpoints, capping this dimension at 3 per the rubric. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Internal section structure is clear and well-organized, but with no references/scripts/assets bundle files present, all reference-style content (region risk tables, drug-interaction lists, output templates) is inlined in a single ~420-line file rather than split into one-level-deep reference files. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |