Content
68%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 action-oriented and well-structured with executable scanner commands and per-language dangerous-pattern references. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: the scanning workflow is sequenced but lacks an explicit re-scan validation feedback loop, which the rubric caps at 3 for batch operations.
Suggestions
Add an explicit re-validation checkpoint to the 校验流程: after fixing Critical/High issues, re-run security_scanner.js and only proceed when the re-scan is clean (validate → fix → retry loop).
Trim the stylistic '道基' metaphor phrases and redundant emoji severity markers to improve token efficiency.
Consider moving the full 检测范围 table and 校验报告格式 template into a references/ file, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview that points to the scanner script and the detailed reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean with tables, code blocks, and checklists, but includes stylistic '道基' metaphor phrases and emoji severity markers that are minor padding which could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready scanner commands with flags (-v, --json, --exclude) and concrete dangerous→safe code substitutions per language, with only minor gaps in the safe-alternative snippets. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step sequence is present and ordered, but the batch scanning workflow lacks an explicit validate→fix→re-scan feedback loop; the delivery gate is stated without a re-validation checkpoint, which caps the score per the destructive/batch guideline. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers and a clearly signaled one-level reference to the real scripts/security_scanner.js bundle file; the large detection table and report template are inline rather than externalized, a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |