Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, actionable instruction-only skill with concrete templates and a clear validated workflow. The only real weakness is incidental rationale prose that slightly inflates the token budget without adding instructions.
Suggestions
Trim the opening rationale paragraph and the 'INTJ 版理解' aside to one line each, or fold them into the relevant sections, so the body reads as instructions rather than design notes.
Keep the diagnosis line, the confidence loop, and the delivery template as-is — they are the core actionable assets.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with well-organized tables and templates, but includes rationale prose (the intro paragraph on Trae-vs-Claude-Code differences and the 'INTJ 版理解' aside) that explains the design rather than instructing, and could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready artifacts: the [PUA-DIAGNOSIS] line format, the numbered 100%-confidence loop, and a full delivery template — instruction-only but fully actionable, which the rubric explicitly rewards. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 100%-confidence loop is a clearly sequenced workflow with an explicit validation checkpoint (step 3: run unit/build/lint/curl/E2E) and a feedback loop (step 4: after two failures switch to an essentially different path), plus a stop-and-confirm gate for sensitive operations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets absent) and none are referenced; under the simple-skills note, a single well-organized SKILL.md with clear headers earns a 3 without external file references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |