Content
87%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.
Concise, actionable, and well-structured with a real bundle script. The main weakness is workflow clarity: a batch page-mutation workflow without an explicit validation/verification checkpoint or error-recovery loop, which the rubric caps at 3.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after generating candidates and before writing, e.g. 'verify each candidate paragraph is a real entity reference (not a bare string match) before appending'.
Include a feedback loop for the write step: 'after appending, re-read the 史记引文 section to confirm format and ordering are correct; fix and re-check if not'.
Make the append-only/dedup guard an explicit checkpoint in step 3 (e.g. 'confirm no duplicate PN before writing') rather than only a stated rule.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body using tables and concrete commands with no padding; the 注意事项 section covers genuinely non-obvious domain specifics (r-type PN rows, 同名异义) that earn their tokens. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste ready commands (python3 .claude/skills/quote/scripts/quote_page.py PAGE --max 30), concrete regex patterns per entity type, exact citation format, and the mandatory record_revision.py invocation. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Five steps are clearly sequenced, but this batch write operation (appending citations to wiki pages) lacks an explicit validation checkpoint or validate→fix→retry feedback loop, so the batch-operation cap applies. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into 用法/执行步骤/实体类型/注意事项 sections with implementation delegated to the referenced scripts/quote_page.py bundle file (verified to exist), one level deep and clearly signaled. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |