Content
71%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.
A dense, well-structured behavioral skill with concrete attribution phrasings, file conventions, and explicit validation/revision loops; as an instruction-only skill its guidance is actionable without code. The main defects are a broken internal reference (refs/examples-and-evidence.md does not exist in the bundle) and mild redundancy between the anti-pattern table and earlier sections.
Suggestions
Create refs/examples-and-evidence.md (or correct the cited path to match the actual bundle layout) so both "见 refs/examples-and-evidence.md" citations resolve to a real file.
Add a brief numbered phase overview near the top (接住 → 读材料 → 成稿 → 讨论 → 检查 → 修订) to make the workflow sequence explicit rather than implied by heading order.
Merge overlapping rows of the "实战中的错误与改法" table into the sections they repeat (e.g., fold the "讨论中已经改口" row into 修订与续读) to reduce redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense, rule-based prose with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every section carries household-specific guidance (attribution rules, PK conditions, quadrant taxonomy). It is not a 5 because there is mild redundancy: the "实战中的错误与改法" table restates points already made (e.g., the 概念课-substituting-重读 failure and the "讨论中改口 ≠ 修好" case appear in earlier sections). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, near copy-ready guidance throughout: attribution phrasings to put directly into script text ("这里作者认为……"／"下面我换个例子……"／"这个联系是我的猜想……"), specific formatting rules ("正文不朗读 URL、引用编号、代码路径"), file conventions ("Clowder AI 通常放在 docs/study/，阅读稿和 -listen.md 互相指向"), and a two-mode review protocol. It is not a 5 because some directives remain directional without operational detail (e.g., "先弄清对方连接的是哪条因果", "沿可用材料继续"). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections follow a coherent phase order — 接住这一次共读 → 先读材料 → 按阅读方式成稿 → 陪着讨论 → 四象限探索 → 怎么检查 → 修订与续读 — with validation checkpoints (the 检查 section's review-cat protocol and the revision loop "核实其是否仍旧，不把'文字已改'说成所有版本已更新"). It is not a 5 because sequencing is implied by heading order rather than stated, and branching across purposes is acknowledged ("几种目的可以并存，随讨论调整") rather than prescribed; it is above 3 because error-recovery loops for consumed text and derived audio are explicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is well organized and the intent to delegate examples is right ("具体原件和一个成稿小样见 refs/examples-and-evidence.md"), but the bundle contains no refs/ directory at all — the referenced examples-and-evidence.md file does not exist, so both citations ([实战与示例](refs/examples-and-evidence.md) and the 下一步 link) are broken. Scored against the actual bundle structure, this fits 'some structure but references not functional / could be better organized' rather than the good-structure anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |