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.
The body is highly actionable with a clear validated workflow, but carries some narrative padding and a broken external reference. Trimming operator-quote prose and either creating or removing the missing refs path would raise quality.
Suggestions
Create or remove the referenced `refs/evidence-output-contract.md` — the path is cited but the file does not exist, which is a broken progressive-disclosure pointer.
Trim operator-quote asides (e.g. "operator拍板", "猫猫写完") to reduce token cost while keeping the directive guidance.
Move the long "技术要点" reference table into a one-level-deep reference file with a clear pointer from the main body, instead of inlining it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with tables and commands, but operator-quote asides ("猫猫", "operator拍板") and restated context add tokens beyond what Claude needs. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides executable `curl` verification, a concrete `cat_cafe_preview_open({...})` MCP call with a parameter table, and a copy-paste-ready error/troubleshooting table. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Phase C steps are explicitly sequenced (1→2→3) with a validation checkpoint (curl HTTP code check before calling the tool) and an error-recovery table. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Single-file skill with no bundle present, yet the body references a non-existent `refs/evidence-output-contract.md`; most detail is inline rather than split into signaled one-level references. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |