Content
82%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 tightly written, actionable reviewer contract with a precise JSON output schema, copy-paste examples, a clear numbered decision sequence, and a useful common-errors checklist. Its main weakness is mild cross-section redundancy and externalized validation rather than an internal feedback loop.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the single-scope and skip-is-normal rules so each appears once (e.g., state them in 固定输出 and reference rather than restate in 判断顺序/常见错误) to tighten conciseness.
Add an explicit internal validation/recovery micro-step (e.g., 'before emitting, re-check that actions use one scope and obey budget') to strengthen workflow_clarity toward 5.
Consolidate 常见错误 into the matching 判断顺序/判断示例 entries or trim overlaps to sharpen progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense, well-organized instruction with no padding about concepts Claude already knows; minor redundancy where the single-scope and skip-is-normal rules recur across sections, matching 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed'. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a fully executable output contract: exact JSON field names, literal schema value, a fixed action enum, and two copy-paste-ready JSON examples covering the empty and skip cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A numbered 判断顺序 with explicit precedence gives a clear decision sequence plus a 常见错误 checklist; validation/retry is externalized to the host rather than an internal validate-fix-retry loop, so not 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Self-contained body with clear section headers and no nested bundle references (no references/scripts/assets exist); slightly above the simple-skill line with minor overlap between 常见错误 and the judgment rules, matching 'good structure; minor organization gaps'. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |