Content
48%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 gives usable eval templates and real bash examples, but roughly a quarter of it is duplicated content repeated across the main sections and the 产品评估 (v1.8) section, and its central workflow depends on /eval commands and placeholder steps that are not executable as written. Splitting the worked example and v1.8 material into reference files and adding a failure-feedback loop would materially improve it.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the body: merge the two grader-type lists, the two pass@k/pass^k explanations, and the two eval-storage layouts into single sections — this would cut the file by roughly 25%.
Replace placeholder steps ("[Run each capability eval, record PASS/FAIL]") with executable commands or a bundled script, and either implement the /eval define|check|report commands in a scripts/ file or drop them in favor of concrete file-level instructions.
Move the full worked example and the 产品评估 (v1.8) details into references/ files (e.g. references/example-auth.md, references/product-evals.md) and link to them from SKILL.md, keeping the main file as an overview.
Add an explicit feedback loop to the workflow: after running evals, instruct what to do on FAIL (fix, re-run, only proceed when pass@3 threshold is met).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Substantial duplication pads the body: grader types are presented twice ("## 评分器类型" with 3 types, then "### 评分器类型" with 4 in the 产品评估 v1.8 section), pass@k/pass^k guidance appears twice ("## 指标" and "### pass@k 指南"), and the eval file layout is repeated in "## 评估存储" and "### 最小评估工件布局". This matches anchor 2 (several unnecessary/padded sections); not a 3 because the redundancy is structural rather than occasional over-explanation. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | There are concrete templates (capability/regression eval markdown formats) and real commands ("grep -q \"export function handleAuth\" src/auth.ts && echo PASS", "npm test -- --testPathPattern=\"auth\""), but key execution steps are placeholders ("[Run each capability eval, record PASS/FAIL]") and the /eval define|check|report workflow commands have no backing script or bundle file. This fits anchor 3 (concrete but incomplete, pseudocode in places); not a 4 because central operational steps are not executable as written. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four phases (定义 → 实现 → 评估 → 报告) are clearly numbered with report formats and status gates ("状态：可以发布", "准备就绪，待审核"), giving explicit checkpoints. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no fix-and-re-validate feedback loop when an eval fails — the evaluate step records PASS/FAIL but never instructs what to do on failure. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist — all ~305 lines live in one SKILL.md, including the full worked example ("## 示例：添加身份验证") and the v1.8 product-eval material that clearly belong in separate reference files. Section headers provide some structure, matching anchor 3; not a 2 because organization exists, not a 4 because content that should be separate is fully inlined. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |