Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a well-sequenced, highly actionable workflow with real scripts and references and solid validation/error-handling structure. The main weakness is redundant re-listing of formatting requirements across sections rather than centralizing them in the referenced template.
Suggestions
Centralize the detailed submission-format/item checklist in references/report-template.md and reference it once from both the 调研 and 成稿 sections to remove the near-duplicate lists.
Replace the `/path/to/paper-know-journal/scripts/` placeholder with the actual resolved path or a documented variable so the commands run verbatim without editing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and free of concept-explanation fluff, but the formatting/submission-requirement items are listed near-verbatim across the 调研 (lines 74, 77) and 成稿 (lines 100-101) sections, which could be tightened by deferring to report-template.md — matching the "mostly efficient but could be tightened" anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable commands with real flags (`init_workspace.py --journal ... --cwd ...`, `validate_report.py --report ...`), a concrete sources.json schema with required fields, and explicit file-naming rules, all copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 初始化→调研→成稿→验证 sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint ("验证通过后告知用户") and a dedicated 失败处理 section with error-recovery branches for missing official site, name conflicts, and access failures. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Body points one level deep to real bundle files ("资料处理规则见 references/source-policy.md。报告结构见 references/report-template.md"), both of which exist, keeping the overview lean while deferring detail appropriately. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |