Content
82%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 well-engineered process skill: concrete, tool-grounded, and easy to follow from structure decomposition through report output, with thoughtful edge-case handling. Its weaknesses are modest — a trimmable rationale section and the absence of an explicit final validation checkpoint — and nothing reads as filler.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step before 第六步: after building the summary table, re-verify that every 事实/因果/定性 node from the 第二步 argument tree has a row, and that any node scored as fabricated (dimension ③) was confirmed against a second independent source.
Compress the '这个 skill 在做什么，为什么这么设计' section to 2–3 sentences stating only the operational rules (structure-first targeting the ~20–30% of checkable sentences; take-the-minimum scoring), moving the reasoning about why averaging is dangerous into the scoring table's dimension-⑥ row where it already largely lives.
If the skill grows further, move the report template (第六步) and the six-dimension signal table into a references/ file, keeping SKILL.md as the workflow overview — this would lift progressive disclosure to the overview-plus-one-level-references pattern.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and purposeful — the six-dimension table, sentence taxonomy, and report template all earn their tokens — but the opening '这个 skill 在做什么，为什么这么设计' section spends ~15 lines on design rationale that could be trimmed without losing operational guidance. The over-explanation is confined to one section, so this is anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances) rather than 3. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully actionable for an instruction-only skill: concrete sentence-classification criteria ('有具体的人、事、时间、数字、机构'), a per-dimension check table with failure signals, named tools (web_search, web_fetch, present_files), an exact output filename format, and a copy-paste-ready report template covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly numbered steps (第一步–第六步) with a well-handled 边界情况 section covering error paths (long articles, opinion-only, partial checks, confirmed fabrication), but there is no explicit validation checkpoint before emitting the report — e.g., a final pass confirming every checkable node from the argument tree appears in the summary table and that fabrication findings were verified against a second source. The workflow is read/analysis rather than destructive batch mutation, so no cap applies; it sits at anchor 4 (clear sequence, minor validation gaps) rather than 5 (explicit validation steps). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single-file skill with clear section headers and no nested references, so navigation is easy; however at ~140 lines with the full six-dimension signal table, edge-case guidance, and report template all inline, it sits at 'good structure with minor organization gaps' rather than the clean overview-plus-references ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |