Content
93%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 lean, highly actionable instruction body with concrete formats, an explicit round structure, and a single well-signaled reference. The only gap is a missing validation checkpoint in the file-archive step.
Suggestions
In stage 六 (存档), add a verification step: confirm the file was created at the reported path (e.g., check existence / re-read it) and handle the case where ~/Context/ does not exist before writing.
For the 引入新人物 command, state explicitly whether the new participant is appended to the persisted participant list in the org archive, so archiving stays consistent.
Consider a one-line guard for the case where a user issues 止 before any 综述 round, so the 收场 summary and global network diagram still have defined behavior.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense and efficient throughout—no padding explaining what a debate or ASCII chart is, and it assumes Claude's competence; even the org template block earns its place as executable spec. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready guidance: an exact speech format, six enumerated action tags, the 可/止/深入此节/引入新人物 command menu, a real timestamp command, and a concrete org file path and structure. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six sequenced stages with an explicit per-round 发言/综述/等指令 loop are clear, but the archiving step (六) has no validation checkpoint that the org file was written successfully or that the target directory exists. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-signaled one-level reference (「先读 references/original-prompt.org」) is pointed to up front, and the body is cleanly sectioned; the bundle structure (one reference file) matches an ideal overview-to-detail split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |