Content
68%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 content is a well-structured, actionable debugging/issue workflow with explicit gates, validation loops, and a real one-level reference. It is slightly dense in places, which keeps conciseness at the midpoint, but actionability and workflow clarity are strong.
Suggestions
Tighten the longest sentences (handoff consumption, lesson narrow-maintenance) into shorter clauses or a checklist to improve token efficiency.
Consider moving the detailed review-protocol lifecycle (reviewer creation, run-identity health, round counting) into references/review.md, keeping SKILL.md to trigger conditions and a pointer.
Add one or two concrete copy-paste report templates (e.g. a fill-in final-report skeleton) to lift actionability from 4 to 5.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and largely free of basic-concept padding, but several passages are long and could be tightened (e.g. the multi-clause handoff and lesson-maintenance sentences), so it is mostly efficient with some over-explanation. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance — specific file paths (.codestable/...), a report template (经验命中：{path}...), explicit report sections, and gates — with only minor gaps in copy-paste-ready commands. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequenced phases (开工 → 模式与证据 → 硬门槛 → 审查协议 → 收尾) with explicit validation checkpoints (变红验证 must turn green, review rounds capped at 3, cleanup before termination); minor gaps keep it just below 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into clear sections with one-level-deep references to references/debug.md (a real bundle file); some procedural detail (review protocol, lesson maintenance) is inlined that could arguably live in references, but navigation is clear. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |