Content
83%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 lean, highly actionable operational guide with excellent pre-flight inspection and routing, executable demos, and a practical pitfalls table. Its main weakness is the absence of post-write validation/feedback loops around destructive XML manipulation (tracked-changes acceptance, find-replace), which caps workflow clarity, and a monolithic single-file layout despite substantial demo content.
Suggestions
Add post-write validation checkpoints to destructive workflows: after the 2.4 accept-all-tracked-changes and 2.2 find-replace scripts, re-run WordInspect (summary / tracked-changes / xml) on the output to confirm hasTrackedChanges === false and the XML is well-formed before reporting success.
Harden the 2.4 regexes and note their failure modes (e.g., '<w:ins>' without attributes is not matched by '<w:ins [^>]*>'; w:del content may contain nested runs) — or route revision resolution through a validated script/checklist rather than raw regex.
Move the four write demos (2.1–2.4) into a references/ file (e.g., references/write-demos.md) with one-line pointers from SKILL.md, keeping the main file as a lean overview + dispatch/pitfalls reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and operational — tool tables, dispatch tables, four tight code demos, and a pitfalls table — with no padding explaining what docx/OOXML/npm are; it assumes Claude's competence (e.g., "对样式 / 修订 / 评论覆盖最全" as a one-line library justification, "底层 LibreOffice headless，排版保真度优于手搓"). Every section earns its tokens, matching the 'lean and efficient' top anchor rather than level 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | All guidance is executable: exact tool invocations ("WordInspect { action: \"summary\", filePath: \"…\" }"), four copy-paste-ready Node scripts (create with CJK fonts, find-replace via adm-zip, images/headers, accepting tracked changes), a feature-to-next-step dispatch table, and a repair pattern ("JsSandbox(action=\"edit-and-run\", scriptPath=<上次返回的>, edits=[{find,replace}])"). This matches the 'fully executable, copy-paste ready, covers common cases' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The sequence is clear — summary-first inspection, then a dispatch table routing on isProtected / hasTrackedChanges / hasComments / wordCount — but destructive XML/document manipulation and batch operations lack validation checkpoints: the 2.4 regex accept-all-tracked-changes and 2.2 find-replace scripts write output with no post-write verification (e.g., re-inspect or XML validation), and the regexes have unvalidated failure modes (<w:ins> without attributes is missed). Per the rubric's scoring notes, missing feedback loops for XML/document manipulation caps this at 3 even though the pre-flight dispatch is well done. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good single-file structure with clear, well-labeled sections (读 / 写 / 转换 / 陷阱) and navigable tables; however the skill is ~200 lines with all four full demos inlined and no bundle files or one-level-deep references, so content that could live in references/ (e.g., the write demos) is inline — matching level 4's 'good structure, minor organization gaps' rather than level 5's reference-split ideal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |