Content
90%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 dense, highly operational skill body: complete tool invocations, explicit decision rules for folderName and enableVersionControl, and a strong error-prevention section. The main gaps are the absence of a post-mutation verification step in the workflows and mild headroom in file organization.
Suggestions
Add a post-mutation verification checkpoint to the end-to-end flows (e.g. after create/move/remove, re-run ProjectQuery { mode: "get" } to confirm the resulting structure), which would raise workflow_clarity to the top anchor.
Consider moving the temp-project comparison table and the rootUri/common-errors detail into a small references/ file linked from the body, keeping SKILL.md as a tighter overview.
Quote natural trigger phrases for the remaining operations (rename, delete, open/switch) in the description to round out trigger term coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and operational — tool tables, decision rules, and concrete invocations with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. The only mildly padded phrase ("磁盘由用户主权管理") is a single instance, below the 'minor instances that could be trimmed' threshold of the level-4 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Every operation has a copy-paste-ready invocation: `ProjectMutate { action: "create", title: "Q2 Marketing", folderName: "q2-marketing", ... }`, explicit rootUri conversion examples ("/Users/user/code/repo" → "file:///Users/user/code/repo"), exact update/move/remove parameter shapes, and the ToolSearch activation call — covering all common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequencing via the decision tree and end-to-end flows ("ProjectQuery → Glob → Grep → Read"), plus a pre-mutation checkpoint ("变更前先 ProjectQuery 确认 projectId") and an error-prevention section. Not 5 because there is no post-mutation verification step (e.g. re-querying to confirm a create/move succeeded); not 3 because the destructive-looking remove is explicitly designed non-destructive and pre-validation is present. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized single-file structure with clear sections for each action, decisions, temp projects, and common errors. No bundle files exist and none are referenced, which is acceptable for this compact size, but at ~85 lines the temp-project details and error catalog are natural candidates for a reference file, leaving minor organization headroom versus the clear-overview-with-references top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |