Content
86%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, lean troubleshooting procedure that defers detail appropriately to a single one-level reference. Adding an explicit validate-fix-retry loop and surfacing a few key diagnostic commands inline would push actionability and workflow clarity higher.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop after step 4, e.g. '验证后若现象不符，回到第 1 步缩小复现范围，勿直接重试'.
Inline one or two highest-value diagnostic commands (e.g. mvn dependency:tree for NoClassDefFoundError) so the body is actionable without always opening the reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and lean with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line prescribes a concrete troubleshooting action or guardrail, assuming Claude's competence. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps name concrete items to collect (产品模块、SDK 版本、JDK、依赖树、异常堆栈、请求 ID) and specific fields to verify (编码、字段排序、金额精度、时间戳、证书链、重放保护), but the actual diagnostic commands and per-symptom checks are deferred to references/diagnostics.md rather than given inline. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered 1–5 sequence is present with a regression-validation checkpoint (step 4) and a proven-vs-hypothesis distinction, but there is no explicit validate→fix→re-validate feedback loop spelling out retry on failure. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that links to one real, one-level-deep reference ([诊断清单](references/diagnostics.md), verified to exist) for detail; the reference points only to external Wiki/Issue URLs, not nested skill files, so navigation is clean. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |