Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise and well-structured with actionable FAQ steps and a concrete diagnostic command, but the diagnostic section is more descriptive than instructive and workflows lack explicit validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add a verification step to the FAQ workflow (e.g., 'after publishing, confirm the card button now responds') so the sequence has a validation checkpoint.
Instruct Claude on how to act on the /feishu doctor report — e.g., which sections to read first and how to map flagged issues to the corresponding remediation, not just what the report contains.
Reconcile the command name shown in the body ('/feishu doctor') with the frontmatter ('/feishu_doctor') to avoid an inconsistency that could confuse invocation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-organized with no concept-explaining fluff; bullet lists and short steps respect the token budget and assume Claude's competence. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The FAQ provides concrete numbered steps with a URL and specific config changes, and the diagnostic section gives an executable command, but the diagnostic portion largely describes command output rather than instructing Claude what to do with the results. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The FAQ is a clear numbered sequence but lacks a validation/verification checkpoint after publishing, and the diagnostic section gives a single action with no error-recovery feedback loop. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the body is a self-contained, well-organized set of sections under ~60 lines with clear headers and no nested references, fitting a simple single-purpose skill. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |