Content
50%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill body is well-organized and gives usable templates and real command snippets for an evaluation-driven workflow, but it leans on redundant conceptual explanation, contains placeholder/non-executable workflow steps, and lacks validation checkpoints for batch/destructive eval operations. Splitting large templates into reference files would improve progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation/feedback checkpoints to the workflow (e.g. 'After running evals, verify each result; if any FAIL, fix and re-run before reporting'), especially since eval runs and baseline updates can be destructive/batch operations.
Replace placeholder steps like '[运行各能力评测并记录 PASS/FAIL]' and '[编写代码]' with concrete, executable instructions or remove them in favor of a runnable command.
Trim re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows (EDD philosophy, pass@k/pass^k definitions) and move large report/definition templates into a separate references/ file to reduce inline bulk.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and uses compact templated blocks, but it re-explains concepts Claude already knows (defining '评测驱动开发' philosophy, elaborating pass@k/pass^k definitions, restating what 'capability' vs 'regression' evals mean) and repeats the same workflow template across multiple sections, so it could be tightened to remove redundant explanation. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete-ish guidance — real shell snippets (grep -q, npm test, npm run build) and a model-grader prompt template — but many workflow steps are placeholders rather than executable instructions ('[运行各能力评测并记录 PASS/FAIL]', '[编写代码]'), and the eval-definition blocks are markdown templates rather than runnable commands, leaving key details incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-stage workflow (定义→实现→评测→报告) is clearly sequenced and the report format is well structured, but for operations that can be destructive or batch-oriented (running evals, overwriting baselines) there are no explicit validation/verification checkpoints or feedback loops, which per the rubric caps workflow clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into clear labeled sections (哲学, 评测类型, 评测者类型, 指标, 工作流, 集成模式, 最佳实践) and there are no problematic nested references, but everything is inline in a single ~220-line file with no bundle files present and no one-level-deep references for the larger template/reference material, so structure is present but not optimally split. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |