Content
78%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 well-structured, actionable, and uses progressive disclosure with a real reference file and scripts. The main weaknesses are bilingual boilerplate that adds tokens and implicit in-workflow validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Remove or condense the bilingual 'ACTION REQUIRED' and '路由上下文/自检' boilerplate sections; keep the operational workflow and validation checklist, which already encode the same discipline more concisely.
Make the render command examples fully concrete (or document the <SKILL_ROOT> substitution rule once) so they are copy-paste ready.
Tighten the in-workflow validation step 5 from 'validate the syntax mentally' to an explicit checkpoint (e.g., 'run scripts/render_diagram.py --check or parse-verify the source before returning').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and assumes competence, but bilingual boilerplate sections ('ACTION REQUIRED', '按需自举' install tables, '路由上下文') add padding a reader of this skill does not need. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete syntax rules, a decision table, and executable render commands cover common cases, but the render examples use a <SKILL_ROOT> placeholder rather than a fully concrete path. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered default workflow plus a validation checklist and completion self-check provide good sequencing, though the in-workflow validation step ('validate the syntax mentally') is implicit rather than a hard checkpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good section structure with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (references/diagram-patterns.md) and scripts; minor gaps such as inline bootstrap/routing content that could live in references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |