Content
70%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 delivers a well-sequenced, validation-heavy workflow with concrete tool invocations and rich error-recovery guidance — genuinely actionable for its domain. It is held back by a monolithic single-file structure with several sections that belong in reference files, and by noticeable repetition of the routing rule across three sections.
Suggestions
State the @mention/targetCats routing rule once (e.g. in the 通知 step) and have the misconception table reference it instead of restating it, freeing budget in a ~240-line file.
Split self-contained policy sections (爪感差/F245 special routing, F246 Phase J dispatch lifecycle, Ghost Thread Bug rules) into one-level-deep reference files under references/ and link them from a short overview.
Tighten the [BLOCKING] table cell by moving the S.1-c recovery-sweep policy into the 处置 section as prose, keeping the table scannable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Almost all content is novel domain policy Claude could not infer (routing rules, claim protocol, custody semantics) rather than padding, but the critical routing rule (@mention/targetCats) is restated three times (top blockquote, Step 2 warning, misconception table), and the [BLOCKING] table cell and 常见误区 rows embed long overlapping policy paragraphs that could be consolidated. Fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'; not 4 because the redundancy goes beyond minor instances. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool calls with parameters (cat_cafe_feat_index(featId="F088"), cat_cafe_list_threads(activeSince=...), a full cat_cafe_cross_post_message(...) invocation with content template) plus scenario-to-action tables and an explicit claim/release protocol with coordination phases. Not 5: claim/release are shown as quoted message text rather than complete tool invocations, and some cells remain policy-level hints (e.g. "带 Decision Packet @co-creator") without executable form. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear four-step pipeline (发现 → 通知 → 协调 → 处置) with an explicit inbound validation gate ("三问（缺一不接）"), a judgment-to-action table with verified/mismatch/insufficient verdicts, a failure-mode callout, and a claim protocol with timeout/re-claim recovery and operator escalation — explicit checkpoints plus feedback loops, matching the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and everything lives in one ~240-line monolith; self-contained policy sections (爪感差/F245 routing, F246 Phase J lifecycle, Ghost Thread Bug rules) would naturally be separate reference files, and the only external pointer (docs/bug-report/...) is a repo path rather than a skill reference. Section headers do give reasonable structure, so this fits 'some structure; content that should be separate is inline' rather than the minimal-structure anchor at 2 or the well-split anchor at 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |