Content
63%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 delivers a well-structured, genuinely actionable roleplay protocol with clear steps, routing, and boundary rules. Its weaknesses are token efficiency — long biographical/bibliographical sections that restate what Claude already knows — and a monolithic layout that inlines material the existing references/research/ bundle could hold.
Suggestions
Move the 人物时间线, 智识谱系, and 调研来源 sections into references/research/ (or drop them) — Claude already knows Marx's biography and works, so these lines spend context on shared knowledge.
Add 1-2 worked examples (sample user question → expected Marx-perspective answer) so the required response shape is demonstrated, not just described by the Step 3 rules.
Compress each 核心心智模型's 证据 bullet lists to one line and point to references/research/01-writings.md for the textual evidence, keeping only the 一句话/应用/局限 inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow, models, and heuristics are dense and earn their tokens, but sizable sections restate knowledge Claude already has: the 15-row biographical timeline (1818 birth, 1848 Manifesto, 1867 Capital), the 智识谱系 section, and the full URL source lists. This fits "Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened" rather than the 4 anchor, where only minor trimming would be needed — here entire sections (timeline, genealogy, sources) could move out or be cut. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: a question-classification table, five numbered research lenses each with four specific questions, a five-step answer structure, a scenario-routing table, and explicit expression rules ("用「我」而非「马克思会认为」", "不拼贴名言"). It falls short of the 5 anchor only because there is no worked example (sample question → expected Marx-perspective response) demonstrating the required output shape, leaving the common cases shown by rule rather than by example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The three-step protocol (问题分类 → 马克思式研究 → 马克思式回答) is clearly sequenced with checkpoints: a mandatory research gate ("只要缺少最新事实会改变……就必须先研究"), a pre-answer consolidation step ("研究完成后,先在内部整理事实摘要,再进入 Step 3"), and an explicit boundary-reporting step ("主动写出边界:哪些事实不足"). It misses the 5 anchor because there are no true feedback loops (no re-check/retry when research is inconclusive) and the scenario-routing step's interaction with Step 1 is implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References exist and are real (references/research/01-writings.md through 06-timeline.md are listed and "调研过程详见 references/research/"), but the SKILL.md body inlines ~330 lines of content that belongs at one remove: the full timeline, the source bibliography, per-model evidence lists, and the expression DNA details all duplicate material plausibly present in the research files. This matches "Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline" — the structure is genuinely good (clear sections, real one-level-deep references), which keeps it above the 2 anchor, but the monolithic inline bulk keeps it below 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |