Content
62%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 content is operationally strong with a clear, validated workflow and concrete tool guidance, but it is held back by narrative padding and a missing executable example for the code-export mode, and it does not leverage bundle files for progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Tighten the F076/F174 failure anecdotes to one-line lessons (e.g. "F076: mismatched dark style was rejected; always match existing palette") to reduce token cost.
Add a short copy-paste React/Tailwind component skeleton for Mode B so the code-export path is as actionable as the design path.
Move the Style Consistency Gate detail or the Common Mistakes table into a reference file under references/ and link to it, giving the overview a leaner entry point.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly operational (tool tables, limits, commands) but the anecdotal failure lessons (F076 "不能说一模一样，只能说毫不相关", F174) add narrative padding that could be tightened without losing the lesson. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete MCP tool names, the 25-op limit, and `git rev-parse --show-toplevel` are actionable, but Mode B (code export) only says "生成 React + Tailwind 组件代码" with no executable code example, leaving a key detail missing. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow diagram gives a clear sequence with explicit validation (get_screenshot, side-by-side comparison, operator review) and feedback loops (不一致 → 修正 → 重新 batch_design; 否决 → 回到 batch_design) for batch operations. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single well-organized ~140-line file with no bundle files to split into; the one external reference (in-context-observability-checklist.md) is signaled inline, but content that could be separate (style-gate detail, mistakes table) remains inline. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |