Content
53%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 is well-structured with accurate threshold tables and a documented CLI, but it is held back by flavor text, refactoring examples that re-teach basics Claude knows, a workflow with no validation/re-run checkpoint, and a broken script dependency (missing lib/shared.js) that makes the primary command non-executable as bundled.
Suggestions
Fix or inline the dependency on ../../lib/shared.js so 'node scripts/quality_checker.js <扫描路径>' actually runs in the bundle, and verify the documented -v / --json flags against the real CLI parser.
Cut the "核心原则" flavor lines and replace the two basic Python refactoring examples with a pointer to the checker's actual output (e.g., a sample report and how to act on each severity level).
Add an explicit validation loop to "校验流程": after applying refactor suggestions, re-run quality_checker.js and only mark the gate as passed (✓ 通过) when issue counts drop below thresholds.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The metric/threshold tables and CLI usage are lean, but the "核心原则" block ("劣质代码是技术债，技术债是道基裂痕") is pure flavor text, and the two Python "重构建议" examples teach guard clauses and extracting common functions — basic concepts Claude already knows. This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient, some unnecessary explanation) better than anchor 2 since the padding is confined to two sections. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The documented commands ("node scripts/quality_checker.js <扫描路径> -v / --json") are concrete and the thresholds match the script's constants, but quality_checker.js requires '../../lib/shared.js', which does not exist in the bundle, so the primary command fails on launch — a missing key detail that drops it below anchor 4's 'minor gaps'. It stays above anchor 2 because the tables, report template, and flags are specific and mostly verifiable in the script. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | "校验流程" lists a coherent 5-step sequence (scan → metrics → smells → naming → report) but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops — nothing says to re-run the checker after refactoring to confirm issues are resolved, even though the trigger table implies it. This matches anchor 3 (sequence present, checkpoints missing or implicit) rather than anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single bundle file (scripts/quality_checker.js) is real and clearly referenced with usage and flag variants, and the body has well-labeled sections. Not anchor 5: the ~150-line body inlines everything (threshold tables duplicate constants that live in the script, and the refactoring examples could live in a reference file), leaving minor organization gaps typical of anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |