Content
63%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.
A focused, highly concrete instruction skill whose payload examples make the delivery rules immediately executable, weakened by redundant repeated JSON blocks and prose restatements plus some missing error-recovery loops. It would benefit from consolidating the near-identical requester-report payloads and splitting per-channel detail into a reference file.
Suggestions
Consolidate the five near-identical replyRoute JSON blocks in the Requester Report Message section into one payload shape plus a short table of route-field values per channel (DingTalk, Matrix DM, external), which would cut roughly 60 lines of repetition.
Split per-channel payload details (DingTalk/Feishu/WeChat/Matrix variants) into a references/ file and keep a concise payload-shape summary in SKILL.md, improving progressive disclosure.
Add an explicit delivery-verification step for requester reports (check the tool's success response before returning to teamharness-project-management to mark the report as sent), mirroring the mentionSender failure handling.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but repeats itself: the Requester Report section shows five near-identical replyRoute JSON blocks differing only in route values, and the 'answer directly instead; do not use the message tool for current-session replies' guidance is restated in the intro, the Channel/Room Selection Protocol, and the Message Tool Protocol. Anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation' understates this repetition, while anchor 2's 'several padded sections' overstates it since most content earns its place. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete copy-paste JSON payloads with real example values, a full PROJECT_REQUESTED message template, and a legacy requester-encoding table cover the common cases (DingTalk, Matrix DM, cross-room, external channels). Falls short of anchor 5 because some payloads rely on unstated message-tool behavior and placeholders like '<project-management requester report markdown>' remain illustrative rather than fully executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Channel/Room Selection Protocol is a numbered 1-5 sequence with an explicit no-guess fallback ('If the destination is missing or ambiguous, do not guess'), and validation checkpoints exist ('After the tool returns delivery.sent: "matrix_self_trigger", stop'; mentionSender ok:false means do not mark the report as sent). Not anchor 5 because explicit error-recovery feedback loops appear only for some flows rather than throughout the protocols. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single 310-line file has clear section headers but inlines per-channel payload details that would fit a separate references file, and no bundle files or one-level-deep reference split is provided or signaled. This matches anchor 3 ('some structure... content that should be separate is inline') better than anchor 4's 'references mostly clear', since there are no references at all. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |