Content
67%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 well-structured, actionable skill body with a clear sequenced workflow and properly signaled, real one-level-deep bundle references. The main quality drag is redundancy: gap-analysis semantics repeated across three sections, duplicated dependency listings, and inline trading-concept explanations that should be consolidated or moved to a reference file.
Suggestions
State the gap-support/gap-resistance heuristics once (in step 4 or a short reference note) and delete the near-duplicate restatements in step 6 and 注意事项.
Drop the 前置准备 dependency block since it duplicates the frontmatter dependency declaration verbatim.
Add an explicit error-recovery step to the workflow for failed data fetches (e.g. 'if fetch fails, retry with an alternate code format per references/stock_code_format.md') and specify the output data-file naming convention.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient but noticeably loose: gap-support semantics ('向上缺口:通常构成支撑位' / '向下缺口:通常构成压力位') are repeated in step 4, step 6, and the 注意事项 section; the dependency list is duplicated between frontmatter and 前置准备; and it teaches standard trading concepts Claude already knows. It fits anchor 3 ('could be tightened') better than anchor 4, since the repetition spans three separate sections. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, near-executable guidance: named scripts with parameters ('调用 scripts/fetch_stock_data.py --stock_code <code> --days 30', 'analyze_stock.py --data_file <path>') plus three worked examples (000001, 00700.HK, AAPL). Minor gaps keep it at 4 rather than 5: the exact data-file naming convention is never specified and no expected output format is given for either script. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence (validate code → fetch data → compute indicators → analyze → predict → recommend) with a validation checkpoint at step 1 ('确保代码格式正确'). It misses anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop in the body — e.g. what to do when data fetch fails (that guidance exists only in references/stock_code_format.md, not the workflow itself) — which fits anchor 4 ('minor validation gaps'). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with a 资源索引 section that clearly signals each real bundle file with its purpose ('获取数据…见 scripts/fetch_stock_data.py', '代码格式…见 references/stock_code_format.md'), all one level deep and verified to exist. It falls short of anchor 5 because detail material that belongs in a reference — the repeated gap-analysis heuristics in 注意事项 and the multi-bullet analysis methodology in step 4 — is inlined in SKILL.md rather than split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |