Content
88%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, dense rule-base with explicit high-risk validation gates and clean one-level reference navigation. Slight actionability and progressive-disclosure gaps (abstract intent-confirmation wording, one unreferenced bundle file) keep it just below top marks.
Suggestions
Add a one-line pointer for lark-wiki-token-routing.md from the trigger index (or remove it) so every bundle file is reachable and none is orphaned.
Replace the abstract "确认用户意图" wording in the write/delete rule with a concrete confirmation prompt template or the specific fields to surface.
Consider one short copy-paste example for the exit-10 retry (argv before/after appending the confirmation flag) to make the high-risk flow fully executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense, lean rule-base with no concept padding; assumes Claude's competence and lets every rule earn its place (e.g., "判断成功用 ok == true" rather than explaining JSON envelopes). | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides concrete commands and decision rules ("lark-cli auth qrcode", "--format json", exit code 10 handling, relative-path-only) but a few rules stay abstract ("确认用户意图") and there are no copy-paste code blocks. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The high-risk approval rule lays out an explicit sequence with a validation gate (stop → confirm action/risk/params → explicit consent → append hint flag to original argv → retry) plus a no-bypass guard, giving clear checkpoints and a feedback loop for destructive ops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview body with a well-signaled trigger-index table linking one-level-deep references that all resolve to real files; the orphaned, unlinked lark-wiki-token-routing.md reference is a minor organization gap. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |