Content
57%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 delivers genuinely executable commands with concrete flags and a clear output contract, but the actual multi-step workflow is scattered rather than sequenced, validation for this batch operation is vague boilerplate, and structural redundancy (repeated workspace paths, duplicated sections, inlined common-constraints) wastes tokens. Bundle navigation is partial: the main script is properly referenced while the merge script and config.yaml are dangling.
Suggestions
Rewrite 流程 as a numbered pipeline (convert → retrieve source → spawn isolated workers → merge via scripts/merge.py → validate report exists and each figure has a section) with an explicit validation checkpoint naming the concrete pass criterion; this removes the batch-operation cap on workflow clarity.
De-duplicate: state the task-workspace path once and reference it thereafter, merge the two 输入 sections, and move the "公共硬约束" boilerplate and the report template into a separate reference file (e.g. references/report-template.md) linked from the body.
Fix the malformed report-template code block (unclosed/unopened fence at line 62, unexplained placeholders) and document scripts/merge.py and config.yaml in the body so every bundle file is navigable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly dense and functional with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but it needs tightening: the task-workspace path ".bensz-api/task-{yyyymmdd-hhmm}-{简短描述}/paper-explain-figures/" is repeated verbatim ~6 times, the "输入" section appears twice (lines 18 and 28), and the "公共硬约束" boilerplate block (BAC auditing, credential hygiene, generic path/SSRF rules) is largely irrelevant padding for this specific task. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it stays above 2 because there is no conceptual over-teaching, only structural redundancy. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable commands are given for the main entry point and its variants — "python3 paper-explain-figures/scripts/paper_explain_figures.py --fig /abs/path/to/figure1.png --note ..." plus --parallel, --max-parallel, and --runner flags, and a cleanup rm -rf command — matching 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'. It is not 5 because the report-template block is malformed (a closing ``` at line 62 with no matching opening fence, placeholders like "> 文件位置： xxx" left unexplained) and the per-figure worker prompt — the heart of the pipeline — is never shown. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The core pipeline (convert to jpg → retrieve nearby source code → per-figure isolated interpretation → merged report) is stated in the intro bullets, and 失败与恢复/校验 sections exist, but the sequence is never laid out as ordered steps with checkpoints: the 执行步骤 section is mostly about bug-reporting hygiene, and 校验 is vague ("执行 Skill 已有的静态检查、脚本验证或人工复核" names no actual check or pass criterion). Since this is a batch operation (multiple figures, parallel workers) and the validation is not concrete, workflow clarity is capped at 3 per the batch-operation guideline. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The bundle is real but under-navigated: the body correctly references scripts/paper_explain_figures.py (verified to exist), yet scripts/merge.py — the script that produces the promised single merged report — is never mentioned, config.yaml is referenced but absent from the bundle, and the "公共硬约束" boilerplate plus the report template are inlined in SKILL.md rather than split out. Sections exist (## 流程, ## 输出, ## 约束) so structure is present, but it is jumbled (duplicated 输入, stray code fence), matching 'some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |