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 is a rigorous, highly actionable decision procedure — clear three-question workflow, explicit verdict-to-action mapping, checklist, and worked failure demos. Its weaknesses are structural: heavy reference material is inlined in a 310-line file, trigger lists are duplicated across three sections, and all `refs/` pointers dangle because no bundle files ship with the skill.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced bundle files (refs/resolver-catalog.md, refs/claim-schema.md, refs/dogfood-fixtures.md) or remove the pointers and keep only the inlined essentials — as delivered, every '详见 refs/...' instruction is a dead end.
Deduplicate the trigger inventory: the frontmatter triggers list, the 触发分层 section, and the Skill 自激活检测 table restate the same triggers; keep one canonical table and reference it.
Move phase-specific implementation directives (the PR-O1/O2/O3 notes) into the F167 feature doc or a clearly marked rollout section, so the evergreen reflex procedure is not interleaved with time-bound rollout instructions.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | There is no padding of concepts Claude already knows and the material is domain-dense, but the ~310-line body repeats the same trigger inventory three times (frontmatter triggers list, "触发分层（hard vs soft）", and the "Skill 自激活检测" table), and inlines phase-sensitive directives ("PR-O1 only document：不要在 PR-O1...", "PR-O3 实施时...") that are time-bound and belong in the feature spec. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is clearly above the noticeably-verbose 2 anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is largely executable: a copy-paste push-back template, a complete TypeScript WaitSourceRef schema, concrete resolvers (`cat_cafe_get_message(messageId).author === 'operator'`, `git log --grep --author`, `gh api`), and 8 对/错 demo pairs. It stops short of the 5 anchor because key execution details (the 7-resolver catalog, ClaimGroundingEvent schema, full dogfood fixtures) are deferred to `refs/` files that are not present in the bundle, so the reader cannot actually follow those pointers. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Q1 (enumerate claims) → Q2 (independent resolver with sourceTier) → Q3 (three-state verdict) sequence is explicit, with a verdict × actionFamily decision table, fail-closed handling for insufficient evidence, a push-back recovery path, and a "自检 checklist（每次接球必过）". This is precisely the 5 anchor's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops; checklists' — validation is the skill's core, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is good and references are clearly signaled one level deep (`refs/resolver-catalog.md`, `refs/claim-schema.md`, `refs/dogfood-fixtures.md`, each with a stated scope), but no refs/ directory or any bundle files exist, so every pointer is broken, and content that clearly belongs in those files (resolver cache/budget policy, schema enums, 8 dogfood cases) is inlined instead. That sits between the inlined-content 2 anchor and the well-split 4 anchor, at 'some structure but could be better organized'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |