Content
68%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.
Highly actionable content with executable commands and clear structure, undermined by repetitive sections and missing validation checkpoints for batch visual analysis. Tightening redundancy and adding error-recovery steps would lift the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints for the batch flow — e.g. verify frame count after extraction and validate analysis.json before prompt generation, with a fix-and-retry loop on API failures.
Remove redundancy by collapsing '技术说明', 'Coze Bot优势', and overlapping '注意事项' items into the sections where the information already appears, or move them to references/analysis-guide.md.
Lean out the repeated Coze Bot recommendation so it appears once, preventing token waste without losing the preference signal.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with code blocks and lists, but the '技术说明', '注意事项', and 'Coze Bot优势' sections repeat information already covered in '前置准备' and could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable copy-paste bash commands with specific scripts, parameters, and a concrete JSON output schema, covering all common cases (抽帧, Coze analysis, alternative API, single image). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced with two alternative paths, but this is a batch operation (批量图片分析) with no validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops, which caps the score at 3 per the rubric. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured sections with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references in '资源索引' to real files (three scripts and references/analysis-guide.md); minor gaps where some technical notes could live in the reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |