Content
77%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.
A highly actionable, well-validated multi-step workflow with concrete commands, decision tables, and strong error-recovery paths. Its weaknesses are repetition of the same authorization/verification caveats across sections and a monolithic body that inlines material better suited to reference files.
Suggestions
Consolidate the delivery-authorization and delivery --verify caveats (currently repeated in Steps 0b, 1, 4, 5, and the recovery section) into one canonical statement plus pointers, to cut significant length.
Move the delivery-receipt mechanics (SHA-256 receipts, path-alias conflict detection, delivery.json path rules) into a reference file and keep only the operative rules inline.
Add concrete JSON examples for the local (A) and archive-only cases to mirror the existing push example.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense procedural guidance that assumes competence (it points to protocols like `comet-classic/reference/context-recovery.md` instead of re-explaining them), but the delivery-authorization and `--verify` caveats are restated across Steps 0b, 1, 4, 5, and the recovery section (e.g. "不能仅凭 branch_status: handled 就认定用户已授权" appears in three places), which is more than the 'minor instances' of the level-4 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Every step carries copy-paste-ready commands (`comet state select/check`, `comet state delivery <change-name> --file <json-path>`, `comet archive "<change-name>"`, `git add -- <逐项核对后的归档路径...>`) plus a concrete JSON example for the push case; the few placeholders (`<change-name>`, commit message) are explicitly justified as project-dependent. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 0–5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints for the destructive merge/move/push operations (entry `check`, `comet guard archive`, `delivery --verify`, staged-diff inspection, a full exit-conditions checklist) and genuine feedback loops (BLOCKED → decision-point pause with options A–E, stop-on-failure rules, and a resume protocol), matching the level-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section headers are clear and external references are one level deep and well signaled, but the ~190-line body inlines reference-grade detail (delivery receipt SHA-256 mechanics, path-alias conflict detection, delivery.json path rules) that belongs in a separate file, and the skill ships no bundle files of its own — fitting the level-3 anchor's 'content that should be separate is inline'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |