Content
57%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 highly actionable with copy-paste-ready commands and complete scripts, and its section structure is clear. Its main weaknesses are extensive duplication of bundle scripts inline (hurting both conciseness and progressive disclosure) and a workflow lacking explicit validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Replace the inlined Node.js and bash source blocks with short pointers to scripts/xiaoyue-chat.js and scripts/xiaoyue-companion.sh, keeping only invocation examples inline
Add explicit validation steps to the workflow (e.g. check the API response for errors and retry, confirm openclaw send succeeded) instead of a static error-lookup list
Deduplicate the 场景类型 section against the scenePrompts map, and ship the assets/ images referenced by the scripts or note they must be created
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body inlines ~75 lines of Node.js source and a ~50-line bash script that already exist as bundle files in scripts/, and the 场景类型 list duplicates the scenePrompts map — several padded, unnecessary sections. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable throughout: exact invocation commands with concrete examples, complete openclaw message send syntax, full working scripts, env var setup with the key-source URL, and a platform/channel format table. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step workflow (receive message → call glm-4.7-flash → optionally send image → send via OpenClaw) is clearly sequenced, but error handling is a lookup list with no validation checkpoints or feedback loops inside the workflow. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized with a quick reference and scripts referenced by path, but roughly half the document is inlined source code duplicating real bundle files in scripts/, and assets/ images are referenced but do not exist. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |