Content
67%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, concise instruction-only skill with a clear sequenced workflow, validation, and error-recovery guidance. Its main weakness is actionability: it relies on high-level instructions rather than concrete executable examples, even where a prompt template reference is available.
Suggestions
Add a short inline example of the expected structured output (主题/关键词/核心问题) in each of text, yaml, and json so the output contract is concrete.
Explicitly signpost references/prompt_templates.md from the 语义提取 or 格式化 section so the prompt template is discoverable from the main flow.
Tighten or externalize the 公共硬约束 boilerplate, keeping only the skill-specific constraint inline, to improve conciseness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and assumes Claude's competence, avoiding concept explanations, though the shared common-constraints boilerplate adds some length that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in places (5-10 English terms, 2-5 questions, text/yaml/json formats, specific failure handlers) but stays high-level with no executable examples or precise extraction commands, which is acceptable for an instruction-only skill yet leaves key execution detail implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (input → identify type → extract → semantic extraction → format → output) with a dedicated validation section and a failure/recovery table providing checkpoints, with only minor validation gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well sectioned and the single reference (references/prompt_templates.md) is one level deep and exists, but the body does not explicitly signpost that file from the main flow, leaving a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |