Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a highly actionable, well-sequenced thesis-tracking workflow with concrete templates, tables, and validation checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are some motivational/philosophical padding and the absence of any bundle files or split-out references for progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Trim the '设计理念' section and standalone quotes to the essential principle, or move them to a reference file, to reduce non-action tokens.
Split the reusable templates (5-sentence thesis, assumption/red-line/valuation tables) into a bundled reference file and link to it from the overview to improve progressive disclosure.
Add an explicit validate→fix→retry note around 'tools/financial_rigor.py verify-valuation' (what to do when verification fails) to strengthen the feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean, concrete templates and tables, but the '设计理念' section and motivational quotes (李录, 凯恩斯, 段永平) add contextual/motivational padding that does not advance the action; it could be tightened without losing clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready artifacts: a 5-sentence thesis template, assumption/red-line/valuation-anchor tables, an explicit health-score formula, and a concrete command 'python3 tools/financial_rigor.py verify-valuation'. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear two-mode sequence (建立论文 A0–A5, 追踪检查 B1–B7) with explicit checkpoints: assumption-status verification in B3, red-line trigger detection with mandated actions in B4, and valuation validation in A0. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist in references/scripts/assets, and all content (~220 lines) lives inline in one well-organized but monolithic file with no one-level-deep references to split-out detail; structure is good but file-based progressive disclosure is absent. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |