Content
75%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-structured, lean instruction-only skill: concrete four-step execution guidance with completion criteria and stop conditions, clearly bounded against misuse. Its main weaknesses are a dangling reference (test-results.md), a verbatim repeated quote, a few typos, and the absence of a worked application example or error-recovery guidance.
Suggestions
Remove or fix the dangling '见 test-results.md' reference — the file does not exist in the bundle.
Fix the typos ('握煤' → '握着热煤', '在我年轻充满睾丸的时候' → likely '充满睾丸素', '等着把他扔给别人' → '把它扔给别人') and drop the verbatim duplicate of the R-section quote in A1 案例 2.
Add one short worked example (user language signal → applied 区分期望/约定 response) to lift actionability, and a recovery note for when step 2 (期望断舍离) damages a relationship.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and sectioned with no concept-padding (no explanation of what anger or freedom 'is' in the abstract), assuming reader competence. Minor redundancy keeps it below anchor 5: the R-section quote is repeated verbatim in A1 案例 2, and the '相关 skills' section restates the frontmatter related_skills, plus small typos ('握煤', '充满睾丸', '等着把他扔给别人'). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The E section provides concrete, executable guidance with explicit completion criteria — '列出你感到压力的所有「应该」，逐个标注…', '计算支出/收入比；若接近 1:1，制定 3 个月降支计划' — even including a scripted sentence to deliver ('这是你的期望，不是我的约定'). It stops short of anchor 5 because there is no worked example dialogue showing the framework applied to a real user scenario. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Four clearly sequenced steps, each with an explicit checkpoint ('完成标准') and one conditional guard ('判停条件: 若涉及真实合同/债务/承诺，先履行约定再谈自由'), plus a Boundary section listing failure modes. Not anchor 5 because there is no feedback/recovery loop — e.g., what to do if the 期望断舍离 step backfires or the 3-month spending plan fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The ~100-line body is appropriately self-contained with well-signaled sections (R/I/A1/A2/E/B) and no nested references. The one flaw is the dangling reference '测试通过率: 见 test-results.md' — no bundle directories (references/, scripts/, assets/) or test-results.md exist, so this points to nothing. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |