Content
75%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 a highly actionable, well-structured router: routing tables, explicit decision rules, and named anti-patterns leave no ambiguity about which skill to load for each request type. Its main cost is token weight — the absence-claim rule and self-match guidance are repeated across sections and several sentences pack multiple caveats each, so the file could lose roughly a third of its length without losing a routing rule.
Suggestions
Consolidate the four restatements of the absence-claim rule (in Provider scope, the Zero results invariant, the 技术选型 bullet, and the empty-result invariant) into one canonical rule to cut ~10 lines.
Split long compound sentences — e.g. the Kimi home paragraph in the final invariant — into short imperative directives; the diagnostic-print behavior detail belongs in read-claude-code-history, which already owns home resolution.
Move the retry guidance ("When the user says search again...") into the workflow section as a short checklist of the concrete dimensions to change, instead of a prose paragraph.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | No padding with concepts Claude already knows, but the absence-claim rule is restated four times ("Ranked top-K results cannot support an absence claim", "Zero results are not absence", the 技术选型 bullet, and the empty-result invariant), and several long compound sentences (e.g. the Kimi home paragraph) could be tightened substantially. Not 2 because nearly all content is skill-specific, high-signal guidance rather than generic explanation. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only router, the guidance is fully executable: routing tables name the exact owning skill per platform × action cell, decision rules are unambiguous ("With a complete session ID, first use the Codex exact-ID locator, then the Claude Code exact-session lookup"), and specific anti-patterns are named ("Do not use list_local_history.py --source all"). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear pre-routing sequence is established ("Establish two things before routing: which platform... and whether the user wants evidence or resumption") and most verification checkpoints are explicit ("The continuation skills require a verified read receipt", "verify the original messages before assigning a provider"). Not 5 because the flow is distributed across four sections with some checkpoints only implicit, and retry feedback is described prose-wise rather than as a checklist. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist, and the body is well-organized with clear section headers and routing tables; delegation to executor skills (read-codex-history, read-claude-code-history) stays one level deep and is clearly signaled. Not 5 because the dense Invariants section (five long bullets, ~30 lines) is inline material that could be split out or trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |