Content
72%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 content is well-structured with good progressive disclosure to real reference files and concrete, actionable instruction-style guidance. The main gap is the absence of explicit validation checkpoints in the workflows.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints to each flow, e.g., 'Before outputting the note: verify 10-15 tags, confirm no 绝对化用语/医疗功效 terms, and confirm title contains an emoji + 卖点'.
Tighten the '注意事项' section by merging overlapping items (真实性/避免敏感词/避免夸大) to reduce token cost.
Provide one fully worked end-to-end example (complete title + body + tag set) so the common case is copy-paste ready.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is well-organized and mostly assumes Claude's competence (e.g., the prompt formula and word-bank pointers), with only minor trimmable padding in the '注意事项' and tone-style guidance; sits above the 3-anchor but not fully lean enough for a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: numbered steps, a prompt formula ('主体 + 描述 + 场景 + 风格 + 细节 + 构图'), sample titles/tags, and word-bank references; only minor gaps prevent a 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Three clearly numbered flows are sequenced, but checkpoints are implicit (e.g., '优化笔记质量' is a soft checklist rather than a hard validate-then-proceed step); the destructive/batch cap does not apply since this is content generation, but validation gaps remain at the 3-anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview with a dedicated 资源索引 pointing one level deep to four real reference files via well-signaled markdown links with purpose annotations; bulk detail lives in the references, matching the 5-anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |