Content
96%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 body is a strong example of skill writing: a concrete fill-in template, one worked example per diagram form, and terse per-section rules with zero filler. The only structural question is that the sizable example gallery is fully inlined rather than split into a reference file, and one component-tree example appears mangled.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient: no explaining what a PR is or why reviews matter; every example block demonstrates a concrete format choice (pseudocode, call tree, file tree, mermaid, diff, full code) and each earns its place, with guidance like "保持文字简短" and "不要让用户承受过多信息". | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides a copy-paste-ready template with placeholders and one concrete worked example for every visualization form, so the common cases are fully covered; the only blemish is the slightly garbled component-tree example, which is too minor to drop below the anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A single, unambiguous action — fill in the given template — with explicit per-section rules for Summary, Evidence, and Merge Danger; it involves no destructive or batch operations, so no validation checkpoints are needed and the simple-skill condition for a 5 applies. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized with no external references (none exist, which is appropriate), but the ~155-line body keeps everything inline — the gallery of seven visualization examples and four diff variants could plausibly live in a reference file, which is the minor organization gap that keeps it at anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |