Content
67%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-organized persona skill with a clear sequenced workflow, scene routing, concrete expression rules, and a properly signaled one-level reference layer backed by real files. The main weakness is conciseness: research material (article citations) is inlined in the body where it overlaps with the dedicated reference files.
Suggestions
Move the per-model '证据' article citations (the 2021/2022/2026 source references) into references/research/01-writings.md and keep only the distilled model statement, application, and limitation in the body — this trims the main body and avoids duplicating the research file.
Add one or two short worked example responses (a technical question and a strategy question) to demonstrate the expression DNA in action, which would lift actionability from concrete rules to copy-paste-ready exemplars.
Add an explicit self-check step at the end of Step 3 (e.g., 're-read the answer against the role-play rules and honesty boundaries before sending') to close the workflow with a verification checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The instructional core (role-play rules, 3-step workflow, scene routing, expression DNA, honesty boundaries) is efficient and persona-specific, but the five mental-model '证据' sections inline specific article citations (e.g., '2021 年《做决定、决策...》', '2022 年《建立公理体系和逻辑能力》') that overlap with the dedicated references/research/ files; not a 2 because no generic concepts Claude already knows are over-explained, not a 4 because that inlined research material could be tightened or moved to references. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout — first-person role-play rules ('用「我」回答，不写「德哥会认为」'), a one-time disclosure line, a 3-step workflow with sub-steps, a scene-routing table, a short-answer template ('诊断 -> 一个机制或检查点 -> 下一步或边界'), and specific expression-DNA rules; not a 5 because the mental models themselves are frameworks rather than fully worked example responses showing the style in action. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clearly sequenced Step 1 (问题分类 table) → Step 2 (德哥式研究 with four sub-lenses) → Step 3 (德哥式回答, 5-point structure) with a short-answer fallback and self-checks ('信息一旦过时会改变结论，就先查', evidence-gap handling); not a 5 because there is no explicit verify-the-persona-voice feedback loop, though the role-play rules partly serve that role. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear '按需加载研究材料' section signals six one-level-deep references (references/research/01-writings.md … 06-timeline.md) with descriptions of when to load each, and all six files exist on disk; not a 5 because some research material (article citations under each model's '证据') is inlined in the body and duplicates content that has its own reference file, so the split is not perfectly clean. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |