Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is highly actionable with concrete JSON examples and a clear intent-to-tool index, and it captures valuable Feishu-specific constraints Claude would not know. It loses points for general-concept padding in the appendix, missing validation checkpoints on batch/destructive operations, and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure to separate references.
Suggestions
Trim or remove the appendix "背景知识" sections (calendar architecture model, event lifecycle) that describe concepts Claude already knows, keeping only Feishu-specific facts.
Add explicit validation/verification steps for batch and destructive operations (e.g. confirm event_id and attendee list before batch_delete, verify patch results with a follow-up get).
Move the reference-style material (ID format tables, calendar type table, RSVP status table, OAPI limits) into a separate REFERENCES.md and link to it from a concise overview to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and information-dense with Feishu-specific knowledge Claude lacks (user_open_id requirement, ID format conventions, async meeting-room booking, OAPI limits), but the appendix "背景知识" explains general concepts like the calendar/event/attendee hierarchy and event lifecycle that Claude already knows, fitting the score-2 anchor of mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The quick-index table maps intent to tool/action/required params and the six scenario blocks provide complete, copy-paste-ready JSON payloads with concrete field values, matching the score-3 anchor of fully executable examples that are copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Sequenced workflows exist (e.g. get→check recurrence→instances, async meeting-room create→wait→list rsvp_status) and an error-troubleshooting table aids recovery, but batch/destructive operations like attendee batch_delete and event patch lack explicit validation checkpoints, which per the guidelines caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets absent) and all content is inline in a single ~240-line SKILL.md; sections are well-organized but background material such as the appendix could live in a separate reference, matching the score-2 anchor of content that should be separate being inline. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |