Content
92%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.
An exceptionally lean, well-specified instruction skill: it defines a complete iterative procedure with a concrete output template, explicit loop and termination conditions, and a clear facts-vs-decisions division of labor. The only minor improvement would be a worked example of one round to make the abstract design-tree/frontier mechanics concrete.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~26-line body is pure procedural instruction (design tree, frontier, rounds, facts-vs-decisions split) with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | The body gives a copy-paste-ready output template (numbered ❓ questions each with a ➡️ recommended answer), concrete rules ("每个问题的措辞都要让回答 'yes' 就是接受你的推荐答案", spawn a sub-agent for environment facts), and an explicit termination condition. Not 5 because no worked example of a real round shows the design tree and frontier in action — a minor gap for an instruction-only skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The iterative algorithm is fully sequenced: build the tree, compute the frontier, ask the whole numbered round, wait for answers, let answers reshape the tree, recompute, repeat. The loop condition (frontier empty) and the final checkpoint ("在用户确认我们已经达成共同理解之前，不要采取行动") are explicit feedback/validation steps, matching the 5 anchor; this is not a destructive or batch operation so no cap applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and the skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, with no need for external references; the short flowing body is coherent and navigable as-is. The rubric's simple-skill exception explicitly permits a 5 here. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |