Content
70%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 methodologically strong body with an unusually good validation loop (心内判据 checklist with retry) and concrete templates, examples, and output commands. Its weaknesses are redundancy (the description-over-modification theme repeated 4+ times) and a monolithic ~240-line single-file structure where the diagram specs and style guide could live in references/.
Suggestions
State the 'describe first, don't rush to solutions' rule once (e.g., in a single prominent place) and cut its repetitions from the Gotchas, 约束是什么, 真伪定性, and 松动哪条 sections — the repetition costs several hundred tokens without adding guidance.
Move the three ASCII diagram specifications (and optionally the 中文母语化 table) into a references/ file (e.g. references/diagrams.md), keeping SKILL.md a lean overview that names the three shapes and links out — mirroring how template.org is already externalized.
Add a short excerpt of a finished output essay (or one fully worked constraint->solution-space->behavior chain in prose form) so the writing style being demanded is demonstrated, not just described.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 'description before modification / don't rush to find exits' theme is repeated at least four times (Gotchas "不要急着写'如何突破约束'", "这引擎首先是描述，不是改造", "注意这一步是在更准确地描述...不是在指路", and the entire "松动哪条（第二位）" section), and "约束是什么" opens with philosophical prose (water/cup metaphor) that could be tightened. Not a 4 ('minor instances') because the redundancy is sectional, not minor; not a 2 because the bulk — hardness layers, discriminating questions, diagram specs, judging gates — is genuinely non-obvious methodology Claude does not already know, not padding. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance is strong: per-constraint discriminating questions ("违背它，是系统物理崩溃（硬），还是有人罚你（软）"), copy-paste output commands (`date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S`, `~/Documents/notes/{时间戳}--{领域}的约束__constraint.org` with frontmatter in the real file `references/template.org`), three complete ASCII diagram templates, and three worked input->output examples. Not a 5 because it never shows even a fragment of the finished essay it demands, and the writing-quality criteria ("一口气读完", "有落差") remain stylistic direction rather than executable checks. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequenced workflow with explicit validation and feedback loops: a Workflow Routing table maps each trigger to a workflow; the 7-step 工序 is explicitly ordered; the 心内判据 section is a 7-item checklist with a retry loop ("过不了一条，回工序接着走") and 解释力 as the primary gate; the diagram section adds "右边对不上左边，就是约束没找准，回去接着挖". This matches the 5 anchor (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, checklist). | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The one bundle reference (`references/template.org` via "frontmatter 见 references/template.org") is real, clearly signaled, and one level deep — but the 240-line / ~20KB body is largely monolithic: the three full diagram specifications with examples, the Chinese-nativization table, and the essay-writing guide are inlined material that plausibly belongs in reference files, matching the 3 anchor ('content that should be separate is inline'). Not a 2 because section headers make it navigable and the template IS appropriately externalized; not a 4 because the inline bulk goes well beyond a lean overview plus well-signaled references. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |