Content
47%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 admirably lean and contains a sensible quality bar (distinguish genuine impressions from public knowledge and unverified observations), but it delegates the entire workflow to a relative link that does not resolve and provides no steps, commands, or current entry point of its own. As written, an agent following this skill has nowhere to go: the referenced workflow is missing and the only concrete artifact mentioned (main.py) is explicitly disclaimed.
Suggestions
Fix or inline the workflow reference: either add the referenced SKILL.md as a real bundle file (e.g., references/workflow.md, linked one level deep) or replace the dead relative path with the actual steps in the body.
Replace the main.py disclaimer with the positive instruction — name the current entry point/command that should be used for note organization.
Add a short explicit sequence (read notes → categorize menu → record impressions vs. public knowledge vs. to-verify observations → cross-reference past dining entries → output format) with a completion checklist, since '仅列菜名不能替代完成' alone gives no verifiable finish criteria.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is three lean lines with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — "读取并遵循 [统一工作流]...", "默认包含有依据的品鉴分析，分清实际感受、公开知识和待验证观察", and a deprecation guard for main.py. Every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The sole concrete instruction — "读取并遵循 [统一工作流](../../../.codex/skills/gourmet-organizer/SKILL.md)" — points to a file that does not exist in the bundle or at any resolvable path (verified: the .codex/skills tree contains no gourmet-organizer/SKILL.md). The remaining lines are high-level criteria ("分清实际感受、公开知识和待验证观察") and a prohibition ("不以其运行成功作为交付依据") with no commands, steps, or named current entry point. This matches 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; not 3 because there is no executable guidance at all once the dead link is removed. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a rough directive order (read the linked workflow, then apply the analysis distinctions, and don't treat main.py as the entry point) but no actual sequence of steps, no validation checkpoints, and the workflow itself is delegated to a nonexistent file. The simple-skill exception does not apply because the single action (follow the unified workflow) is not unambiguous — the referenced file is unavailable. Fits 'rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined; validation absent', not 1 because the directives are at least coherent and ordered. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body has one clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference — which would be good structure — but the link points outside the skill bundle via a fragile relative path (../../../.codex/skills/gourmet-organizer/SKILL.md) that does not resolve, and the bundle ships no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files at all. With the entire detailed content delegated to a dead external path and no section headers beyond the title, navigation effectively fails, matching 'minimal structure' with unusable references; not 3 because a working, well-signaled reference is the core of what progressive disclosure requires here. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 11 / 20 Passed |