Content
77%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.
A dense, highly actionable skill body with a well-sequenced workflow and real validation checkpoints. The main gaps are inline time-sensitive provenance dates that hurt conciseness, and a set of clearly-signaled references that are not backed by an actual shipped bundle.
Suggestions
Move provenance dates and version numbers (e.g. '2026-06-10~12', '2026-06-12 实测', 'v0.1') into a dedicated changelog/provenance or 'old patterns' section so the main flow stays time-insensitive and leaner.
Ship the referenced files (prompt-book-v0.1.md, review-protocol-v0.1.md, build-animatic.mjs, shot-plan-v0.1.md, assets/README.md) in references/ or scripts/ so the one-level-deep pointers resolve to real bundled material.
For references that point to external repo paths (docs/videos/cucu-pr-flow/episode-brief.md, video-forge/SKILL.md), note explicitly that they are cross-skill/repo artifacts rather than bundled references, so navigation expectations are clear.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and un-padded ('不教什么是 i2v'), but inline time-sensitive dates ('2026-06-10~12', '2026-06-12 实测') and version numbers ('v0.1') sit in the main flow rather than a deprecated/old-patterns section, which the guidelines say to penalize — so not the lean level-3 anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete executable guidance throughout: tool routing ('GPT 系生图', 'Gemini 系'), a specific ffmpeg flag ('-loop 1'), named scripts ('build-animatic.mjs', 'animatic/edl-v1.mjs'), and concrete prompt rules ('3-4 个 Then', 'Keep cartoon 句 + Do not realistic') — actionable enough that the absence of full code blocks is not penalized for an instruction-only skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step 流程 is clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint ('Animatic 检查点(行为刹车)'), a '30 秒人工验收四问' checklist, roll judging via review-protocol, and a Common Mistakes 错误→后果→修复 table as an error-recovery feedback loop; batch/destructive generation is explicitly guarded, so it is not capped at 2. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References are well-signaled and one-level-deep ('→ 范例', '→ 范例+配方'), but no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle directories exist, so none of the cited files (prompt-book-v0.1.md, review-protocol-v0.1.md, build-animatic.mjs, etc.) can be verified as real shipped files, and several point to external repo paths — matching the 'references present but not backed by actual structure' level rather than the clean level-3 split. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |