Content
61%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 a well-structured, actionable guide with concrete git commands and a clear end-of-document checklist. Its main weaknesses are duplicated version-number guidance, the absence of an explicit post-write validation loop, and a missing fully-worked example.
Suggestions
Add an explicit post-write validation step (e.g. re-read the file to confirm the new Version block's title, underline length, and label prefixes match the existing blocks, and that historical blocks below are intact) before considering the task done.
Merge the "新版本号" and "版本号来源" sections into one to remove duplicated version-alignment guidance and reduce tokens.
Include one fully filled-in example (real date, real version string, real path, and a sample written Version block) so the git-log command and output format are unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept padding, but version-number guidance is duplicated across "新版本号" and "版本号来源", and phrases like "不得臆造" recur, so it could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready git commands with explicit %B pretty formats and a concrete CHANGELOG block template, with placeholders appropriately justified; a fully filled real example would make it fully executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequenced checklist exists with pre-write format/fact checks, but as document manipulation it lacks an explicit post-write validation feedback loop (validate → fix → retry), capping it at 3 per the rubric. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clearly headed sections with no nested references and no unnecessary external files, though the redundant version-number sections could be consolidated. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |