Content
66%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.
Operationally rich content with excellent workflow sequencing, validation checkpoints, and concrete tool-level guidance, but it fails progressive disclosure: it is a near-monolithic 190-line document whose cited example/script files do not exist, and its dated incident narratives bloat the token budget.
Suggestions
Create the referenced bundle files (examples/web-search-via-cli-worker.md, examples/delegate-implementation.md, scripts/evolution_scan.js) or remove the citations — every referenced path currently dangles, breaking the promised copy-paste templates and the evolution-inbox detection rule.
Move the 已知陷阱与对策 table, the dated post-mortem narratives (2026-08-18/22/24/26 incidents), and the 统一监督协议 comparison table into a references/ file (e.g. references/pitfalls.md), keeping SKILL.md to the routing rules, lifecycle workflow, and output contract with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.
Trim the inline external citation URL lists (Langfuse/LangSmith/OTel/Temporal) and named-supervisor incident detail down to one-line rationale statements; keep the operative rule and drop the evidentiary narrative from the main body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and almost entirely skill-specific (tool names, routing rules, pitfalls) with no filler explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it is padded with dated incident narratives ('2026-08-24 会话 9 个 supervisor…leaderboard-reground…', 'pollCount=305…') and inline citation lists (Langfuse/LangSmith/OTel/Temporal URLs) whose evidentiary detail belongs in an appendix, not the main body. Per the judging guideline, time-stamped post-mortem detail not placed in a dedicated section penalizes conciseness. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is highly concrete: exact tool calls (start_managed_claude_supervisor, wait_supervisor_event, close_supervisor, queue_cli_request), parameter values (stall_timeout_seconds 300~600, wait_seconds=60~120, API_TIMEOUT_MS=600000), a literal allowed_tools whitelist, chain_key mechanics, and copy-ready 派工单/验收报告 output templates. The gap keeping it below 5: '完整可复制模板见 examples/web-search-via-cli-worker.md' and 'examples/delegate-implementation.md' point to files that do not exist in the bundle, so the promised copy-paste-ready templates are unavailable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The lifecycle is a clear 5-step sequence (启动→派工→追踪→验收→关闭归档) with validation at step 4, explicit feedback loops (返修轮次预算 capped at 2 rounds, 逐级降级 with recorded reasons, BLOCKED reporting), and a final 验证方式 checklist split per route (通用 / supervisor / 队列 / 原生 subagent) — this matches the top anchor of clear sequence, explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and checklists. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle exists at all (no references/, scripts/, examples/ directories), yet the body cites 'examples/web-search-via-cli-worker.md', 'examples/delegate-implementation.md', 'scripts/evolution_scan.js', and '相关示例见 examples/' — dangling references a reader cannot follow. Meanwhile ~190 lines of pitfalls tables, post-mortems, and the supervision protocol are inlined in SKILL.md when they clearly belong in separate reference files, matching the anchor 'content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined'. | 2 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |