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 knowledge skill: it compresses the book's ideas into a memorable framework, grounds them in two concrete cases, defines trigger scenarios and boundaries, and closes with sequenced steps that have explicit completion criteria and a stop condition. Remaining issues are minor: bookkeeping metadata inside the body, one dangling file reference, and completion criteria that sometimes describe user habits instead of executable checks. Suggestions: (1) Remove or relocate the "审计信息" block and metadata comments — they consume context without aiding application. (2) Fix the dangling "见 test-results.md" reference by shipping the file or dropping the pointer. (3) Rewrite step 4's "完成标准" as a concrete, executable check (e.g. the exact three diagnostic questions re-applied) consistent with the other steps.
Suggestions
Remove or relocate the "审计信息" block and leading capability/metadata comments — they consume context without helping the model apply the skill.
Fix the dangling reference "测试通过率: 见 test-results.md" by including the file in the bundle or deleting the pointer.
Rewrite step 4's "完成标准" (每季度检查) into a concrete executable check — e.g. re-run the three diagnostic questions and state the current ownership/leverage level — consistent with the other steps.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and distilled — the R/I sections compress the source into a short quote and a five-point skeleton, and both A1 cases are four bullets each — with every section earning its place for a knowledge-transfer skill. It is not 5 because the trailing "审计信息" block ("验证通过: V1 ✓ / V2 ✓ / V3 ✓", "蒸馏时间") and leading capability/metadata comments add tokens that do not help the model apply the skill. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The E section gives concrete, checkable guidance: each step has a "完成标准" (e.g. "回答三个问题——收入是否按时间计？有无产权…有几层杠杆？") and step 2 even has a 判停条件. It is not 5 because some completion criteria (e.g. step 4's "每季度检查资产") describe user habits rather than directly executable instructions, and there is no worked example of applying the diagnostic to a concrete offer/business. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four E steps are clearly sequenced (诊断→向上迁移→加护栏→复跑) with per-step checkpoints and an explicit stop-and-loop condition in step 2. It matches anchor 4 rather than 5 because there is no full validation/re-check loop (e.g. re-diagnosing after a migration to confirm the level actually moved), though the knowledge-skill context means the destructive/batch cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is one well-organized file with clear R/I/A1/A2/E/B section headers and no nested references, which is appropriate for a skill of this size. It is not 5 because the body points to "test-results.md" ("测试通过率: 见 test-results.md") which does not exist in the bundle — a dangling reference — and the audit/related-skill metadata could live outside SKILL.md. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |