Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is lean, actionable, and well-organized for a compact instruction-only skill, with concrete fix steps and a clear diagnostic command. The main gap is the absence of an explicit verification step in the fix workflow.
Suggestions
Add a validation checkpoint to the FAQ workflow, e.g. a final step "重新点击卡片按钮验证是否恢复正常" (re-test the card button to confirm it works).
Reconcile the diagnostic command name — the description uses "/feishu_doctor" while the body uses "/feishu doctor"; pick one consistent form.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence — it skips generic concept explanations and gives only domain-specific material (exact config steps, the /feishu doctor command, the diagnostic output structure), so every token earns its place per the level-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-ready guidance: a numbered platform-navigation fix with a real URL (https://open.feishu.cn/app) and an exact command ("/feishu doctor"); for an instruction-only skill the guidance is specific and actionable, matching the level-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The FAQ fix is a clear numbered sequence (1–4: login → select app → change subscription → publish), but there is no validation/verification checkpoint (e.g. "re-test the card button after publishing"), so checkpoints are implicit per the level-2 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the content is under 50 lines, organized into two well-signaled sections (FAQ + diagnostic command) with clear headers; per the simple-skills note this satisfies progressive disclosure at level 3. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |