Content
88%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 strong, highly actionable skill body: concrete tool invocations, explicit verification loops, and precise failure handling for a stateful GUI domain. The main improvements are trimming repeated warnings and moving the long sample Survey output out of the main file.
Suggestions
Consolidate the self-drawn UI / WINDOW_CHROME_BLOCKED warning into one authoritative section and reference it from 铁律 and 错误诊断 instead of restating the mechanism each time.
Move the ~30-line sample Survey return block into a references/ file (e.g. survey-output-example.md) and keep only a 5-line distilled excerpt in SKILL.md to reduce always-loaded tokens.
Consider moving scenarios D–F into a scenarios reference file so the always-loaded core holds the framework, priorities, and 铁律 only.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and operational with no padding about concepts Claude already knows, but the self-drawn/close-button hazard is explained in four places (核心思维, 执行路径的优先级, 铁律 4, 错误诊断) and 'Survey first' is restated three times, so minor trimming is possible. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Tool calls are copy-paste ready (e.g. 'MacosAct { type: "intent", app: "WeChat", intent: "open_moments" }'), the Survey return is shown as a full concrete example, and six scenario walkthroughs cover the common cases including error codes and exact responses. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear three-phase framework (Survey → Plan → Act+Verify) is sequenced with explicit validation (MacosObserve after every MacosAct), error-recovery guidance per failure mode, stop rules, and a checklist (铁律) — matching the anchor for explicit validation with feedback loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized single-file skill with clear sections and no nested references, but the ~30-line sample Survey output and the scenario catalog are inline content that could be split into a reference file, leaving minor organization gaps versus the ideal overview-plus-references split. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |