Content
71%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-organized, concise procedural skill with a clear multi-step workflow and validation section. Its main weakness is actionability: steps are concrete in naming but lack executable specifics.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable detail to each step (e.g., specific surveying procedures, dredging parameters, or commands) so the guidance goes beyond naming actions to performing them.
Move validation inline as gates between destructive steps (e.g., confirm survey completion before dredging) rather than only as a post-hoc checklist.
Tighten the redundant Overview/intro sentences that restate the title to recover a few tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean with named tools and actions rather than over-explained concepts, but the 'Overview' line and intro sentence restate the title's intent, leaving minor padding to trim. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps name concrete tools and actions (e.g. 'Conduct land surveys using measuring tools (准绳, 规矩)', 'Build dams and reservoirs (陂九泽)') but offer no executable commands or specifics on how each step is performed, fitting the incomplete-guidance anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five numbered steps give a clear sequence and a dedicated Validation section provides checkpoints, but validation sits after-the-fact rather than as inline gates between destructive steps like dredging and reclamation. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A compact (~50 line) single-purpose skill with no external references needed and clean section headers (Overview, Steps, Expected Outcomes, Validation), matching the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |