Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-organized with concrete tool-call sequencing, scoring well on conciseness and progressive disclosure. It is held back by missing call-syntax/actionability detail and the absence of a validation checkpoint for the batch assignment workflow.
Suggestions
Add a short example showing the call syntax and arguments for assign_voice (and list_voices output shape) so guidance is copy-paste ready.
Insert a verification step after assignment, e.g. 'Review assignments for duplicate or missing voices and confirm coverage of all characters before summarizing.'
Optionally note how to fall back when no voice matches a character's profile, to complete the actionability gap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean: compact principle-to-voice mappings ("活泼开朗 → 明亮有活力的音色") and a terse 5-step tool sequence with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. This matches the score-3 anchor 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It names concrete tools (list_voices, get_characters, assign_voice) and gives decision logic, but shows no call syntax, argument formats, or example voice IDs — matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'. Not score 1 (it instructs rather than describes) and not score 3 (not copy-paste ready with full executable detail). | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5 steps are clearly sequenced, but this is a batch operation (assigning a voice to every character) with no validation/verification checkpoint (e.g. detecting duplicate/missing assignments); the rubric caps such workflows at 2. Above score 1 (sequence is present) but below score 3 (no explicit validate/feedback step). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and has no external bundle files; per the rubric's simple-skills note, well-organized sections alone warrant a 3. The two clearly-headed sections (分配原则, 使用步骤) organize the content well with no nested references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |