Content
73%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.
A well-structured, highly actionable process document with excellent validation and error-recovery wiring, appropriately split into one-level-deep references and scripts. Its weaknesses are token efficiency — repeated constraints and suite boilerplate that a competent model does not need restated — and an unreferenced example-output file that would make the deliverable format concrete.
Suggestions
State the file-protection constraint (main.tex, @config.tex, .cls/.sty) once — in 约束 — and drop the repetitions in 目标输出 and 执行步骤 1, and move the suite-wide bug-reporting/BAC boilerplate in 公共硬约束 to a shared reference file, keeping only skill-specific constraints inline.
Link references/example_output.md from the body (e.g., in step 2 or the 输出 section) so the expected LaTeX output format is discoverable instead of an orphaned bundle file.
Replace the generic template sections 输入/输出 ('按用户请求和配置文件提供必要输入', '输出 Skill description 所承诺的交付物') with one concrete line each tied to this skill's actual inputs (info_form.md) and deliverables (the two .tex files).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core process (steps 1–5, formats, validation) is dense and useful, but there is notable padding: generic template lines ('按用户请求和配置文件提供必要输入', '输出 Skill description 所承诺的交付物'), a suite-wide bug-reporting policy, BAC/audit boilerplate in 公共硬约束, and the file-protection constraint repeated three times (目标输出, 执行步骤 1, 约束 1). Fits anchor 3 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not 2 because there is no concept-teaching padding and the operational content earns its tokens. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact target paths ('extraTex/3.1.研究基础.tex'), a runnable mkdir command, per-item format templates for 已具备条件/尚缺条件, and runnable check scripts ('python3 skills/nsfc-research-foundation-writer/scripts/run_checks.py --project-root ...'). It falls short of anchor 5 because no example LaTeX output is surfaced — an example_output.md exists in references/ but is never linked — leaving the actual prose style underspecified. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step sequence is explicit with a dedicated validation step (一致性校验 with two concrete checks, worked examples, and failure handling: mark '[需补充：XXX]' and prompt the user), plus a 失败与恢复 loop and a DoD checklist. Matches anchor 5 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists'. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md works as an overview with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references ([references/info_form.md], [references/dod_checklist.md], both verified to exist) and clearly documented scripts. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4: references/example_output.md is present in the bundle but never referenced from the body, and the inlined 公共硬约束/bug-policy boilerplate is suite material that could live in a shared reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |