Content
81%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 a well-structured, multi-step research workflow with concrete scripts, a validation gate, and good file-based progressive disclosure. The main gaps are placeholder script paths and a few inlined checklists that slightly overstay the overview role.
Suggestions
Replace the /path/to/paper-know-journal/scripts/... placeholders with a discovery convention (e.g. resolve relative to the skill root or an env var) so commands are copy-paste runnable.
Consider extracting the long '优先查证这些信息' / report-must-contain checklists into a reference file so SKILL.md stays a lean overview.
Add a brief one-line summary at the top of the workflow stating the expected end-to-end output and validation success signal for quick orientation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and mostly efficient, enumerating research items without padding concepts Claude already knows; a few bullet lists could be tightened but are information-dense rather than fluffy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete executable commands (init_workspace.py, validate_report.py with flags), specific filenames (sources.json, KnowJournal-{杂志名}.md) and required fields, but uses placeholder /path/to/... paths that reduce copy-paste readiness. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequence (初始化 → 调研 → 成稿 → 验证) with an explicit validation checkpoint (validate_report.py) and a 失败处理 section providing error-recovery feedback loops for each failure mode. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Body is an overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep references to real files (references/source-policy.md, references/report-template.md) and scripts in scripts/; some inlined research checklists could arguably move to a reference but the split is sensible. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |