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 well-structured, mostly efficient overview of an eval-driven-development workflow with concrete grader examples and a clear four-phase sequence, but it is held at the mid level across all dimensions by inline placeholders/pseudo-commands, an implied rather than explicit retry loop, and a monolithic single-file layout with no progressive disclosure to separate reference files.
Suggestions
Make the eval-execution block executable: replace placeholders like '[執行每個能力 eval，記錄 PASS/FAIL]' with a concrete runner script or actual commands, and clarify whether '/eval define|check|report' are real commands or proposed slash-command conventions.
Add an explicit feedback loop in the Evaluate phase (e.g. 'If any eval FAILs: fix the code, re-run the failing eval, and only proceed to Report when all capability evals pass@3 and regression evals pass^3').
Split the reusable templates (eval-definition, model-grader prompt, report format) and the worked auth example into separate files under references/ and link to them from SKILL.md to enable progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient and does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but at ~220 lines it carries redundant material — the full '範例：新增認證' example largely restates the workflow/templates — so it 'could be tightened' per the level-2 anchor rather than earning the every-token-earns-its-place level 3. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It supplies concrete grader bash commands and clear templates, but several code blocks contain non-executable placeholders (e.g. '[執行每個能力 eval，記錄 PASS/FAIL]') and the '/eval define|check|report' integration commands are proposed slash commands rather than real runnable commands, matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; pseudocode instead of executable code'. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Define→Implement→Evaluate→Report sequence is clearly numbered with checklists and a '準備審查' status gate, but an explicit fail→fix→re-run feedback loop is only implied, not stated; per the rubric's batch-operation guidance the missing explicit validation/retry loop caps this at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent) and all content lives inline in a single ~220-line SKILL.md; sections are well-organized, but the templates and worked example that should be split into separate reference files are inline, matching 'some structure but... content that should be separate is inline' rather than the well-signaled one-level-deep level 3. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |