Content
50%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 skill body is actionable with concrete commands and code, but it is padded by inlining full scripts that already exist as bundle files, and it lacks validation checkpoints for its message-sending workflow.
Suggestions
Replace the inlined Node.js and bash implementations with short pointers to the existing scripts/ files (e.g. "See scripts/xiaoyue-chat.js") to cut duplication and token cost.
Add a validation/verification step after each `openclaw message send`, such as checking the command exit code or gateway status, to create a real feedback loop.
Either create the assets/ directory with the listed images or mark image sending as optional/aspirational so references resolve to real files.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body inlines a full ~70-line Node.js implementation and a full bash script that duplicate the existing bundle files under scripts/, which is noticeably verbose with content that belongs in the referenced files. | 2 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, executable commands such as `node scripts/xiaoyue-chat.js "有点累了" "work-tired"` and complete code, with only minor gaps like assets being referenced though the directory is absent. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The send flow is sequenced but performs an external/batch message send with no validation checkpoint confirming delivery, leaving validation gaps for a side-effectful operation. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is sectioned but large inline code blocks duplicate bundle files instead of pointing to them, and the referenced assets/ directory does not exist, so structure is only partially well organized. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |