Content
50%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 coherent, well-organized EDD reference with useful templates, but it is a monolithic single file that explains familiar concepts, relies on placeholder execution steps and unimplemented slash commands, and lacks an explicit failure→fix→re-run validation loop. Every dimension lands at the scale midpoint.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation feedback loop in the workflow — e.g. after '执行评测', insert 'If any eval fails, fix the code and re-run until pass@k ≥ target; only then proceed to 报告' — to turn the sequence into a gated process.
Replace placeholder execution steps ('[运行每项能力评测，记录通过/失败]') with concrete commands and back the '/eval define|check|report' slash commands with real scripts under scripts/.
Tighten redundancy between '评测工作流' and the '示例' section, and trim explanations of concepts Claude already knows (pass@k, grader types) to recover token budget; consider moving the full worked example to a references/ file linked from a concise overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is well-templated but ~230 lines and explains concepts Claude already knows (the pass@k/pass^k definitions, what code/model/human graders are) and repeats the define→implement→execute→report workflow once in '评测工作流' and again in the '示例' section, fitting 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than the lean level 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It supplies concrete, copy-pasteable templates (eval-definition markdown, grader bash one-liners like 'grep -q ... && echo PASS || echo FAIL', grader prompt formats) but execution steps contain placeholders ('[运行每项能力评测，记录通过/失败]') and the '/eval define|check|report' slash commands have no backing scripts (no scripts/ directory exists), matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-phase workflow (定义→实现→执行评测→报告) is clearly sequenced, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint or failure feedback loop (no 'if eval fails, fix and re-run until pass@k meets target' gate) for what is effectively a batch test operation, so per the guidelines workflow clarity is capped at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the skill is a single ~230-line file with well-organized sections, but content that could be split out (the long worked example, the grader-type templates) is inline with no one-level-deep references, matching 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' rather than the split-and-signaled level 3. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |