Content
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body clearly describes a multi-round research workflow with a useful variable table and concrete search commands, but it is verbose with placeholder filler, omits the concrete LLM prompt that drives iteration, and lacks validation checkpoints. As a monolithic single file it underuses progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Tighten conciseness by removing the placeholder-heavy 输出示例 and the redundant per-round narrative in 工作流示例, which restates the steps already defined in 工作流程.
Make the LLM-analysis step actionable by including an actual prompt template that returns the nextSearchTopic/shouldContinue JSON, instead of only describing that the LLM 'analyzes the current research state'.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the loop (e.g., handling malformed JSON, empty search results, or repeated topics) so the workflow has feedback loops for error recovery.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~235-line body is mostly organized but padded: the 输出示例 uses placeholder filler ('[具体发现1]', '[基于三轮搜索的综合分析...]') and the 工作流示例 narrates the same three rounds already specified in 工作流程, so it could be tightened; it is not a wall of concept-explanation that would warrant a 1, and not lean enough for a 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete commands exist ('python scripts/web_search.py "<query>"') and a variable table is given, but the central LLM-analysis step is only described ('使用LLM分析当前研究状态') with no actual prompt template, leaving a key executable detail missing — matching the score-2 anchor of concrete-but-incomplete guidance rather than fully copy-paste-ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The five-phase flow (输入→初始化→迭代→综合→报告) and the shouldContinue conditional are clearly sequenced, but there are no validation or error-recovery checkpoints (e.g., for failed JSON parsing or empty search results), so it sits at the score-2 anchor of steps-listed-with-validation-gaps rather than the explicit-checkpoint score-3 example. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single >50-line monolithic SKILL.md with everything inline — the detailed workflow example, output template, and troubleshooting are all in-body rather than split into referenced files — matching the score-2 anchor of structured but with content that should be separate kept inline; the over-50-line exception for a 3 does not apply. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |