Content
75%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, domain-specific judgment framework with concrete anti-patterns, an explicit output format, classification criteria, and a clear sequenced process. The main weakness is moderate redundancy across the principles, process, and quick-reference sections that could be tightened.
Suggestions
Consolidate the overlapping criteria: 核心判断四/五, 执行流程 3/4, and 快速拦截 all restate style-self-proof, duplicate-coverage, and independent-evidence rules — consider letting 核心判断 hold the principles and having 执行流程/快速拦截 reference them rather than restate.
Provide one or two concrete, filled-in rg examples (real keyword + component path) alongside the template so the search step is copy-paste ready.
If the 核心判断 detail grows further, split the anti-pattern catalog into a references/ file and keep SKILL.md as the overview + process, which would also raise progressive_disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and assumes Claude's competence — no padding with basics — but the same criteria (style self-proof, duplicate coverage, independent evidence) are restated across 核心判断, 执行流程, and 快速拦截, a moderate trim opportunity. Not a 3 because the restatements serve distinct reader purposes (principles vs procedure vs cheat sheet); not a 5 because the redundancy is noticeable. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: specific anti-patterns (toHaveStyle, toHaveClass, toBeTruthy), a copy-paste output format, explicit classification criteria, and a search command template. Not a 5 because the only command (rg with <关键字>/<component> placeholders) is templated rather than copy-paste ready; not a 3 because the judgment guidance is specific and covers common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | 执行流程 is a clear 5-step sequence (静态审查 → 提炼契约 → 查独立依据 → 查重复 → 分类结论) with decision checkpoints at each step ('如果回答不稳→判无实际作用', '找不到独立依据→判低价值'). Not a 5 because there is no explicit re-validation/retry loop, though one is arguably unnecessary for a non-destructive judgment task. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear section headers (目标/何时使用/不做的事/核心判断/输出要求/执行流程/约束/快速拦截) with easy navigation; no bundle files exist and the skill is self-contained. Not a 5 because it exceeds 50 lines and the anchor's reference-splitting is N/A, so the simple-skill exception does not fully apply; minor organization gaps remain. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |