Content
85%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 strong, professionally structured skill body: an unambiguous 5-step workflow with mid-process and end-of-process validation, five well-handled edge scenarios, and exemplary progressive disclosure into two real, one-level-deep reference files (the module template even contains worked examples). The only real weakness is verbosity — key rules are argued twice at length and several paragraphs could be halved without losing guidance value.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the state-transition-trigger rule: keep the one-line version in the self-check checklist and remove the repeated rationale, since Step 4 (lines 77–82) already explains it in full.
Collapse the [待确认] business-rule-vs-implementation-detail discussion (lines 92–94) to the two-sentence decision rule and keep the worked examples in the self-check only; the psychological meta-commentary ('这种专业感是假的') can be cut.
Consider moving the self-check list itself into a reference or trimming it to pure checklist items — it currently re-explains reasoning that each section already covered, roughly doubling the token cost of those rules.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly purposeful instruction rather than explanation of known concepts, but it is noticeably padded and could be tightened substantially: the state-transition-trigger check is explained in full in Step 4 (lines 77–82) and then repeated nearly verbatim in the self-check (line 152), and the [待确认] business-rule-vs-implementation-detail rule is argued at length twice (lines 92–94 and line 157), including meta-commentary on why fabricated numbers 'look professional'. This fits the 3 anchor ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') better than 2, since nothing explains concepts Claude already doesn't need — it is domain-specific judgment guidance, just over-explained. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully concrete: Step 4 enumerates the minimum interface-contract elements ('请求参数表：参数名、类型、是否必填、默认值、约束规则…错误码表：至少覆盖参数校验失败、权限不足、资源不存在、业务规则冲突'), the output convention gives a worked filename example ('PRD 是 smart-order-assistant-prd.md，设计文档就是 smart-order-assistant-tech-design.md'), and references/module-template.md provides a complete worked skeleton with real tables, Mermaid diagrams, error-code tables, and Given/When/Then examples. Per the rubric's scoring note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable — this is copy-paste ready in structural terms. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is a clearly sequenced 5-step process (parse PRD → precision judgment → architecture diagram → per-module design → acceptance checklist → output) with a flow diagram up front, explicit mid-workflow validation ('写完图之后要立刻反过来检查：图里每一条转换箭头,触发它的机制是什么'), conditional branches for five special scenarios (A–E), and a final self-check checklist of the most-missed items. That matches the 5 anchor (explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklists). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-signaled overview that pushes detail into two real, one-level-deep bundle files — references/precision-rules.md (48 lines of judgment criteria) and references/module-template.md (183 lines of the full document skeleton) — both referenced by exact path at the point of use ('详见 references/precision-rules.md', '使用 references/module-template.md 中的模板展开'), with no further nesting inside them. Judged against the actual bundle structure, the split is appropriate and navigation is easy. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |