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.
A well-structured persona skill: the operating rules, workflow, routing, and style guidance are concrete and non-derivable, and research material is properly offloaded to clearly labeled reference files. The main gaps are minor — some trimming opportunities, implicit rather than explicit validation gates, and slight duplication between inline model evidence and the research files.
Suggestions
Trim persona-color sections (智识谱系, 身份卡's overlapping biography with 06-timeline.md) and move the per-model 证据 bullets into the research files, keeping only one-line citations inline to cut body tokens.
Make the workflow's evidence-gap handling an explicit checkpoint: define what happens when a Step 2 fact cannot be verified (e.g., label the claim as assumption, state the missing evidence layer, and offer the minimal verification path) rather than leaving it as prose inside the Step 2 preamble.
Tighten Step 2 by replacing the four free-form research checklists with a shorter, scenario-keyed lookup so the persona can apply them without re-reading several nested bullet groups.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with persona-specific knowledge Claude cannot derive (mental models backed by dated article citations, expression DNA, decision heuristics) and avoids explaining generic concepts, but sections like 智识谱系 and parts of 身份卡 are decorative and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, executable persona instructions — a verbatim one-time disclaimer, first-person voice rules, a question-classification table, a copy-paste short-answer template (「诊断 -> 一个机制或检查点 -> 下一步或边界」), and a scenario routing table — though Step 2 research guidance remains high-level rather than prescriptive. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 3-step workflow (问题分类 -> 德哥式研究 -> 德哥式回答) is clearly sequenced with explicit routing conditions (纯框架问题默认直接进入 Step 3) and fallback paths for missing evidence; some validation checkpoints (e.g., 诚实边界's research-date caveat) are implicit rather than explicit gates. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The 按需加载研究材料 section clearly signals one-level-deep references (references/research/01-writings.md through 06-timeline.md, all verified to exist) with explicit load conditions; however, the per-model 证据 bullets inline in the body partially duplicate the research files, so the split is good but not optimal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |