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 content presents a clear, well-sequenced iterative retrieval workflow with concrete relevance thresholds and a bounded loop, supported by illustrative worked examples. Its main weaknesses are that all code is non-executable pseudocode with undefined helper functions and that everything is inlined in one long file with no progressive disclosure into reference materials.
Suggestions
Replace or supplement the pseudocode with executable guidance, e.g. a ready-to-use agent prompt template or concrete search commands, instead of undefined functions like retrieveFiles() and scoreRelevance().
Move the two worked examples into a separate references file (e.g. references/examples.md) and keep a one-line summary in SKILL.md to reduce inline length.
Add a failure path: what to do when no high-relevance files are found after 3 cycles (e.g. fall back to manual file listing or ask the orchestrator for hints).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is well-structured and mostly efficient, but the ASCII cycle diagram, the "Problem" framing, and the two multi-cycle worked examples add length that could be tightened. It matches anchor 3 — mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation — rather than 4, which demands only minor trimming. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Every code block is pseudocode: retrieveFiles, scoreRelevance, extractPatterns, mergeContext, hasCriticalGaps, and createInitialQuery are undefined stubs, and relevance scoring is described only as a rubric. This matches anchor 3 ("pseudocode instead of executable code; missing key details") rather than 4, since no example is runnable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-phase cycle (DISPATCH → EVALUATE → REFINE → LOOP) is clearly sequenced with an explicit stopping condition ("highRelevance.length >= 3 && !hasCriticalGaps") and a hard 3-cycle cap, forming a genuine feedback loop. It falls short of anchor 5 because the checkpoints exist only as non-executable pseudocode and there is no guidance for what to do when retrieval fails or returns nothing. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized with clear section headers and no nested references (the "相關" links are one level deep), but the ~200 lines are monolithic — the two worked examples and the phase-by-phase code could live in a separate reference file. Anchor 4 ("good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps") fits; there are no bundle files to evaluate. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |