Content
70%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 well-sequenced, highly actionable debugging methodology with explicit validation checkpoints, feedback loops, and a phase checklist — the workflow quality is genuinely high. The main weaknesses are token-inefficient repetition of the stop-and-return message across three sections, and companion-file references that point to files missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Fix the broken references: either include root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md, and condition-based-waiting.md in the bundle or remove/inline their pointers, since the body currently directs readers to files that do not exist.
Consolidate the overlapping discipline sections (红线, 常见借口, 搭档信号) into a single stop-signals section — they restate the same 'stop and return to Phase 1' message three times.
Trim the inline multi-layer bash example in Phase 1 (or move it to root-cause-tracing.md), and deduplicate the overlapping bullets in the 何时使用 section (e.g., '时间紧迫' appears in both lists).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The four-phase core is efficient and assumes competence, but the '红线' (red lines), '常见借口' (common excuses), and '搭档信号' (partner signals) sections repeatedly restate the same stop-and-return-to-Phase-1 message in three different framings, and the '何时使用' list overlaps itself ('时间紧迫' appears in both the must-use and don't-skip lists). This is more than anchor 4's 'minor instances' but not the heavy padding of anchor 2, so anchor 3 fits best. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: specific commands and checks (git diff, 打印进入/离开组件的数据, the bash diagnostic example with printenv/security/codesign), precise rules (change one variable at a time, <3 vs ≥3 failed fixes), and clear handoffs to companion techniques. As an instruction-only skill the absence of full code is acceptable per the rubric's scoring note; only minor gaps (the embedded diagnostic snippet is illustrative and macOS-specific) keep it from anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four phases are explicitly sequenced with a hard gate ('你必须完成每个阶段后才能进入下一个'), each phase has pass criteria, validation is explicit (create a failing test before fixing, verify the fix and that other tests are unbroken), feedback loops handle error recovery (failed fix → new hypothesis; ≥3 failed fixes → stop and question the architecture), and a 速查表 checklist table summarizes each phase with its pass standard. This matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops; checklists'. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body itself is well-structured with a dedicated section listing three companion files, each with a one-line description and one-level-deep pointers — good signaling. However, scoring against the actual bundle structure, none of the referenced files (root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md, condition-based-waiting.md) exist in the skill directory (no references/ folder at all), so the navigation paths are broken. References present but not resolvable places this at anchor 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |