Content
78%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 body is exceptionally lean and well-structured for a simple review skill, with a clear sequence and appropriate single-page organization. Its main weakness is that the first two checks lack concrete pass/fail criteria, leaving Claude to infer how to judge clarity and executability.
Suggestions
Specify what 'description is clear' means (e.g., 'names the domain and a concrete action, and includes a Use-when trigger') so the check is judgeable.
Define 'steps are executable' concretely (e.g., 'each step names a command, file path, or specific action rather than an abstract verb').
Add a brief validation step such as 're-read the description against the trigger before concluding' to introduce an explicit feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Three terse numbered lines with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every token earns its place, matching the lean/efficient anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives a concrete checklist and one specific, actionable step ('保留机器枚举值' / keep machine enum values), but the first two checks ('check whether the description is clear', 'check whether steps are executable') provide no criteria for how to judge, fitting the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-step sequence where the checks themselves serve as implicit validation for this simple, non-destructive review skill; it lacks an explicit validation/feedback loop, so it does not reach anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A simple skill under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references; the single heading plus well-organized numbered list satisfies the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |