Content
63%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 body is a well-structured, mostly actionable instruction skill with a clear workflow, tiered risk gating, and a concrete decision-record template. Its two real defects are a broken reference to a nonexistent example file and redundant repetition of the ask-gate rule across three sections.
Suggestions
Fix or remove the dangling reference: examples/ambiguous-restructure.md does not exist in the bundle — either add the file or drop the link from the 验证 section.
State the ask-gate rule once (in 允许询问, which is declared canonical) and drop its re-statements in 工作流程 step 6 and the 证据门禁 closing line.
Add a short filled-in 决策记录 example (事实/假设/风险/最小路径/非目标/状态 with real-looking content) so the template is copy-paste actionable rather than a field list.
Replace the cross-skill governance note ("unified-taskflow、task-mode-router… 不得比本节更宽") — which Claude cannot act on from within this skill — with a one-line pointer, or move it to wherever those skills are governed.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and assumes competence with no concept-explaining padding, but the ask-gate rule is repeated three times ("只有缺失信息确实阻止继续时才提一个关键问题" in 工作流程, "只有答案会实质改变…才允许提问" in 允许询问, and "只有答案会改变目标…才提问" closing 证据门禁). Mostly efficient, but the redundancy could be tightened into the single canonical statement. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: a 6-step workflow, an explicit resolution chain (当前上下文 → Memory → 仓库/配置/测试 → 历史 trace → web → 可逆实验), a tiered audit/change/high-risk classification, and a fielded 决策记录 template. Falls short of 5 because there is no worked example of a filled decision record and the one referenced example is missing. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 工作流程 section gives a clearly numbered 6-step sequence, and the 验证 section provides an explicit pre-proceed checklist (目标路径、写入权限、删除/移动目标、验收条件可观察). Not 5 because there is no explicit recovery loop for when a verification item fails; not 3 because checkpoints are present and explicit rather than implicit. The destructive/batch cap does not apply since this skill only establishes change boundaries. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well-organized and the inline content is appropriately compact for a short skill, but the sole external reference — "[ambiguous-restructure.md](examples/ambiguous-restructure.md)" in 验证 — points to a file that does not exist (no examples/ directory is present in the bundle). A dangling reference breaks navigation and is worse than referencing nothing. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |