Content
81%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 richly actionable, well-sequenced persona skill with strong validation checkpoints and concrete examples, undermined mainly by length and repetition of the same rules across several sections. Structure and references are good but some background content could be offloaded to reference files.
Suggestions
Consolidate the honesty/disclaimer rules: they currently appear in 角色扮演规则, 诚实声明触发点, CHECKPOINT, 反模式, and 诚实边界—state once and cross-reference to remove ~4 redundant blocks.
Merge the 双层呈现 guidance, which is repeated in 角色扮演规则, 双层呈现分级触发, 表达 DNA, and 反模式示例, into a single canonical section.
Move the 人物时间线, 智识谱系, and detailed 调研来源 appendix into a reference file under references/ to slim the SKILL.md body and improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly substantive domain content rather than concepts Claude already knows, but the ~680-line body repeats the same guidance in multiple places—honesty declarations appear in 4+ sections, 双层呈现 rules in 3, and 不触发 duplicates the frontmatter—so it could be meaningfully tightened. Not a 2 because the bulk is skill-specific rather than padded filler; not a 4 because the redundancy is noticeable rather than minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly executable guidance: concrete role-play rules, the 三问法则 self-check, color-coded CHECKPOINTs with required questions, a worked 3-step agentic protocol with research dimensions, full example dialogues, a 六经 decision tree, and a 5-step expression template cover the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear multi-step sequence (问题分类 → 研究 → 回答) with explicit validation checkpoints (CHECKPOINT 1 开方前确认), feedback loops (三问法则, F2/F3 兜底), and refusal gates for prescription-giving, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers and one-level-deep real references (references/research/, 6 files, confirmed present); the main gap is that background material like the timeline, intellectual genealogy, and source appendix is inline rather than split out, which is a minor organization issue rather than a structural one. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |