Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill is highly actionable with an excellently sequenced, validated workflow, but it is padded with repetitive persuasion prose and ships a dangling reference to a non-existent file. Trimming the argumentation and adding the missing testing-anti-patterns.md would lift both weak dimensions.
Suggestions
Create references/testing-anti-patterns.md (or remove the '@testing-anti-patterns.md' reference) so the cited bundle material actually exists.
Condense the '为什么顺序很重要', '常见借口', and '危险信号' sections — much of their content is redundant and the same points recur across all three; keep one concise version.
Trim the repeated 'sunk cost / delete the code' argumentation to a single statement so the body respects the token budget while preserving the iron rule.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body mixes tight instructional material (Good/Bad examples, the cycle) with large persuasion sections ('为什么顺序很重要', '常见借口', '危险信号') that restate the same points and pad the token budget; it is mostly efficient but could be tightened substantially. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete executable TypeScript Good/Bad examples, real 'npm test path/to/test.test.ts' commands, and a copy-paste-ready bug-fix walkthrough provide fully actionable guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The red-green-refactor cycle is explicitly sequenced with mandatory verification checkpoints ('必须执行. 绝不跳过'), clear error-recovery feedback ('测试失败了？修改代码，不是测试'), and a completion checklist. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized into clear sections, but it references '@testing-anti-patterns.md' which does not exist in any bundle directory (references/scripts/assets are absent) — a broken one-level reference that prevents a 3. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |