Content
32%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-structured and offers some genuinely executable tool-script calls, but it is severely hurt by full bilingual duplication of every section — the single biggest token-efficiency failure the conciseness dimension measures — and by a missing verify-the-script-output feedback loop in the initialization workflow. References are correctly one level deep but content that belongs in them is left inline.
Suggestions
Remove the verbatim bilingual duplication: keep SKILL.md single-language per the skill's own stated default (the user-preferred-language mode) and drop the parallel <!--zh--> blocks and the duplicate English/Chinese section copies, which alone would roughly halve the body.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after `python scripts/init_crew.py`: instruct Claude to parse the JSON output and only report success when `ok` is true, otherwise surface the error and retry — this closes the missing feedback loop for this batch file-generation operation.
Move the per-file editing guides (IDENTITY/AGENTS/SOUL/TOOLS) and the tool-management/multilingual details into the already-referenced references/ files, leaving SKILL.md as a concise overview that points to them — this matches the progressive-disclosure anchor and offsets the duplication.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The entire body is duplicated verbatim in two languages — every section (Language Strategy, Initialization Flow, File Mapping, Editing Workflow, Tool Workflow, Multilingual Format, References) appears once in Chinese (often inside <!--zh--> blocks) and again in English — roughly doubling ~9,000 characters of guidance, which is the antithesis of the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, copy-paste shell_exec calls (e.g. 'python scripts/tools.py list/detail/search') and a real init command with a JSON config example, but the editing workflow leans on vague verbs like '遵循格式规范和质量指南进行编辑' / 'Edit following the format spec' rather than showing the actual edit mechanics, and the quality-assessment table is a placeholder with '...' cells. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequences are numbered (detect -> gather info in rounds -> generate files -> show -> cleanup; and a 6-step editing flow) with a user-confirmation checkpoint, but there is no validate/verify feedback loop after calling init_crew.py despite file generation being a batch operation — the script returns ok/error JSON yet the instructions never tell Claude to check it before declaring success, which the rubric caps at 2 for batch operations. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to references/prompt-engineering-guide.md, references/crew-file-format.md and references/available-tools.md are one level deep and the files exist, but the detailed file-specific editing guides and the full tool-management/multilingual workflows are kept inline in SKILL.md rather than split into the referenced files, so the overview is not as lean as the 'clear overview pointing to detailed materials' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |