Content
93%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 dense, executable, and well-structured: concrete parameter examples, decision rules, end-to-end flows, and an error-prevention section. The lone weakness is the lack of an explicit confirm/validate checkpoint for the irreversible destructive operations.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint before destructive operations: e.g. 'remove'/Bash rm -rf should require a ProjectQuery confirmation and (where ambiguous) user confirmation before proceeding.
Frame the '变更前先 ProjectQuery 确认 projectId' rule as an explicit validate→proceed step in the workflow rather than only as an error-prevention note, to satisfy the feedback-loop expectation for destructive ops.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and tool-specific throughout — no generic concept explanations, and explanatory clauses (e.g. the 'file:///' triple-slash rationale) convey non-obvious domain knowledge rather than padding; every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable, copy-paste-ready examples for every action (create/update/move/remove) with real parameters, plus URI-conversion examples and end-to-end command chains covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequencing via the decision tree and end-to-end flows, with a query-first validation cue ('变更前先 ProjectQuery 确认 projectId') guarding the worst failure mode; however the destructive 'remove'/'rm -rf' paths lack an explicit validate→confirm→proceed feedback loop, leaving a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A self-contained single-file skill with clear section headers and easy navigation; no external references are needed and none are nested, so it qualifies for the well-organized-sections exception at the top of the scale. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |