Content
78%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 lean, well-structured overview that gives executable entry points, a concrete I/O contract, and a clear fallback workflow with error-recovery loops. It appropriately uses a single real bundle script and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficiently organized into tight labeled sections (输入/输出/依赖/失败处理) with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; only the '复用价值' section drifts slightly into promotional language that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-pasteable execution guidance — the entry script 'scripts/run_doc_parse.py' (verified present), the run command, the equivalent runtime call, and a defined output path — with only a minor gap of no inline Python API usage example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (security-scan pass -> MinerU -> PyMuPDF -> pdfplumber fallback) with an explicit error-recovery feedback loop (degrade on failure; all-fail -> 人工介入/BLOCKED; chunk-level low-confidence marking); only a minor validation gap since output correctness is signaled by confidence but no explicit validate step. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines, well-organized into clear sections, with a single one-level-deep reference to a real bundle file (scripts/run_doc_parse.py, verified to exist) and no nested references — meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |