Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, actionable skill with excellent progressive disclosure and a clear sequenced workflow, held back by generic persona boilerplate that inflates token cost and by the absence of an error-recovery loop around PPTX generation. Trimming the role-positioning paragraphs and adding a validation step would notably raise quality.
Suggestions
Remove or collapse the six generic '角色定位' persona paragraphs; keep only task-specific instructions so the body assumes Claude's competence and respects the token budget.
Add a validate→fix→retry feedback loop for the build step, e.g. 'If generate_pptx.py fails, read the error, correct the JSON (per ppt_structure_guide.md), and re-run before reporting success.'
State the minimal required JSON fields inline (metadata + slides layout/title/content) so the build step is actionable without first opening the reference, while keeping the full schema in the reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The execution steps and constraints are efficient, but each role carries a generic '角色定位' persona paragraph (e.g. '作为一个知识丰富、能够清晰准确地回答各种问题的助手…', '我是一个可靠、高效、专业的助手…') that restates how to be a helpful assistant — concepts Claude already knows — and several are near-duplicates. It is above 1 because the actionable core is tight, but the boilerplate padding keeps it from 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance is present: the verified command 'python scripts/generate_pptx.py --input ./ppt_data.json --output ./presentation.pptx', specific constraints ('标题不超过 20 字', '每条不超过 20 字'), named layout types (TitleSlide/TitleAndContent/TwoColumnText), and the '[图片：xxx]'/'[图表：xxx]' annotation format. Per the instruction-skill scoring note, the absence of more code is not penalized because the guidance is specific and executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The seven-role sequence is clearly numbered and user-confirmation checkpoints exist ('输出初步大纲供用户确认', '确认文件生成成功，告知用户'), but there is no validate→fix→retry error-recovery loop for the file-generation step (e.g. what to do if the script fails or the JSON is invalid). It is above 1 because the sequence and some checkpoints are explicit, but the missing feedback loop caps it at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A '资源索引' section signals each real bundle file with '何时读取' navigation guidance (e.g. '格式规范：见 references/ppt_structure_guide.md（何时读取：角色二、三、七准备数据时必须参考）'), references are one level deep and verified to exist, and detailed format specs are appropriately offloaded from the overview. It is not at 2 because navigation is explicit and content is well split, not monolithic. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |