Content
75%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 a dense, well-organized decision guide built around a per-question-type table of concrete tool paths with explicit convergence criteria and a misjudgment/remedy table. It is consistently just short of excellent across dimensions: minor redundancy, no copy-paste example calls, an implicit rather than explicitly numbered global sequence, and case lore inlined instead of split into reference files.
Suggestions
Move case-specific lore (复杂 coverage 的本地经验 expansion terms, F256 Related-directions behavior) into a references/ file and keep SKILL.md to the question-type table, convergence rules, and misjudgment table.
Add one full example invocation per major tool (e.g., a concrete search_evidence query with options and the fields it returns) so the listed paths become copy-paste ready.
Trim redundancy: the second sentence of 价值门禁 repeats the frontmatter Not-for clause, and the 按证据缺口判断 prose restates the 收敛依据 column of the 8-type table.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense local guidance that assumes Claude's competence ("graph_resolve(anchor, depth=1)", "truncated、scanCapped 或 degraded 时，保留这一覆盖限制") with no generic concept explanations, but has minor trimmable redundancy: "已知精确 anchor、代码符号查询或新功能实现不需要套用整套检索" duplicates the frontmatter Not-for, and the 按证据缺口判断 prose overlaps the table's 收敛依据 column. This fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' — not 5 because of that redundancy, not 3 because there is no padded or already-known-concept content. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The 8-type table gives concrete tool paths per question ("精确 anchor 用 graph_resolve；模糊概念用 search_evidence(scope=docs, mode=hybrid)") and the 常见误判 table pairs each mistake with a concrete remedy. It falls short of 'fully executable; copy-paste ready' because no complete example invocation (query string plus options) is shown, but it is well above the pseudocode/vague anchor since real tools are named with parameters. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Each question type pairs a path with an explicit convergence checkpoint ("原文足以回答当前问题", "主要相关来源已覆盖…报告实际边界") and the 常见误判 table supplies error-recovery handling, so checkpoints are present rather than implicit. It does not reach 5 because the global order of operations (classify → search → converge → deliver) is never laid out as an explicit sequence, and it is above 3 because stopping and verification criteria are stated concretely. This is a read-only recall skill, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-sectioned single file (~74 lines) with one-level-deep, clearly signaled external references in a dedicated section ("docs/features/F200-memory-recall-eval.md", "docs/features/F256-memory-search-strategy-evolution.md", "../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/memory-routing-partial.md"); no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle directories exist to verify beyond the body. Minor gap: case-specific lore (AUDHD expansion terms, F256 Related-directions quirks) is inlined where a references/ split would keep the core leaner — good structure with minor organization gaps rather than the fully 'appropriately split' top anchor, and clearly above the buried-reference/inlined-bulk anchors below. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |