Content
77%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 instruction-heavy skill with a clear routing table, strong validation feedback loops, and concrete artifact conventions. Its two real weaknesses are the missing must-read bundle file `ReadingGuide.md` and duplicated end-section/coverage guidance that costs tokens without adding information.
Suggestions
Create or add `references/ReadingGuide.md`: it is cited four times as a must-read and holds the evidence-grading rules referenced by Completion, but it does not exist in references/ — every routing path in the table depends on it.
Merge the duplicated ending-section guidance: the Gotcha "末节只收拢已经形成的理解" and the section "末节：读完后留下什么" state overlapping rules; keep one and cross-reference it to save tokens.
Consolidate the coverage-completeness rules that currently appear in "先看清整本书", "只读成品", and "Completion" into one place (e.g. the coverage-map workflow section) so the constraint is stated once.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, assumes competence (no "what a book/PDF is" padding), and teaches genuinely non-obvious method; but the end-section rule appears twice (Gotcha "末节只收拢已经形成的理解" vs the "末节：读完后留下什么" section) and coverage-completeness rules recur across three sections (lines 35, 59-70, 80-84), so some tokens could be trimmed. Efficient with minor redundancy — matches anchor 4, not 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Largely concrete for an instruction-only skill: the Workflow Routing table (input → required reading → output), the exact filename pattern with `date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S`, the bun validator invocation with flags, and named references (`references/template.org`, `references/coverage-map.md` — both real files). Abstract writing-philosophy passages are consistently grounded with negative examples ("只说「需要修订」…还没有展示变化"). Not 5 because the evaluation section's instructions (breakpoint search) are more procedural-abstract, and the declared must-read `ReadingGuide.md` is missing, leaving a gap where specific steps were promised. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The routing table gives a clear input-conditional sequence, revision is a genuine feedback loop ("发现断点就修订相应内容，再读受影响的连接"), and Completion specifies the validator command, reading back each warning, the Emacs/denote/org-lint read-back checks, and honest reporting when tools are unavailable ("不可用时明确延期，不能把未执行写成通过"). Clear sequence with explicit validation and error-recovery — anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure and signaling are good — overview body, one-level-deep references to real files (`references/template.org`, `references/coverage-map.md`, `scripts/validate_note.ts`) — but `ReadingGuide.md`, referenced four times and declared "必读" (must-read) and holder of the evidence-grading rules ("细则见 ReadingGuide.md"), does not exist in references/, breaking the most important navigation hop. Existing references are clearly signaled, so this fits anchor 3 (structure present, organization undermined) better than anchor 2 (minimal structure, buried references); it cannot be 4 with a missing central reference. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |