Content
72%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.
The content is a lean, highly specific design specification with concrete palette and layout parameters and clear organization. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit generation workflow with a validation checkpoint before producing the final HTML.
Suggestions
Add a short sequenced workflow (choose palette → cover content → select layouts per point → render single-file HTML → verify keyboard nav/hash sync) with an explicit validation step before finalizing.
Include a minimal single-file HTML scaffold or a copy-paste starting structure so the spec is immediately executable rather than only descriptive.
Clarify how to validate output (e.g., open index.html, confirm ←/→ paging and hash sync, check no forbidden styles) as an explicit checklist.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and mostly signal — exact palette hexes, vw sizing, layout ratios, and explicit prohibitions — with only minor stylistic phrases ('不要科技感') that could be trimmed, sitting noticeably above the efficient midpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable spec values (hex colors, 8.5-10vw headlines, 3×2 grids, font families, keyboard nav) give clear guidance for a visual/instruction-only skill, with only minor gaps such as missing code scaffolding. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Layouts are numbered as a reusable catalog rather than a sequenced workflow, and there is no validation/verification checkpoint, leaving the generate-render-check sequence present but implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The file is a single well-organized, sectioned overview (调色板 / 布局 / 设计细节) with no bundle files and no nested references, which the rubric rewards at 5 for a simple single-purpose skill. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |