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 lean, table-driven operational guide with named tools, exact trigger JSON, and two well-sequenced workflows that both include user-confirmation checkpoints. It consistently sits at 'good with minor gaps': the registration call lacks a concrete parameter example, error-recovery paths are absent, and a couple of implementation details could be trimmed or split out.
Suggestions
Show a concrete cat_cafe_register_scheduled_task call with its full parameter payload (template, trigger JSON, params, targetCatId) mirroring the preview example, so the final registration step is copy-paste ready.
Trim implementation trivia that doesn't affect execution — the fireAt/delayMs normalization note and the '#415' issue reference — and drop the duplicated routing distinction already stated in the frontmatter.
Add a brief error-recovery branch to the registration flow (e.g. if no template matches the user's request, or the preview shows the wrong schedule, revise and re-preview before registering).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is table-driven and dense with operational facts Claude would not know (tool names, trigger JSON, template parameters), with essentially no explanation of known concepts. Minor trimmable content remains — e.g. the routing-layer detail "路由层会将 delayMs 归一化为绝对时间 fireAt" and the raw issue reference "#415" are implementation trivia that don't change what the executor does. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, named MCP tool calls appear throughout (cat_cafe_list_schedule_templates, cat_cafe_preview_scheduled_task, cat_cafe_register_scheduled_task, cat_cafe_remove_scheduled_task, cat_cafe_list_tasks) alongside exact trigger JSON mappings and a preview draft example. It stops short of fully copy-paste-ready because the register call is never shown with its concrete parameter payload, and the pause/manual-trigger rows only point at UI with no MCP fallback guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The registration flow is a clearly sequenced 4-step process with an explicit validation checkpoint (preview → user confirm → register), and the destructive deletion flow includes target confirmation and user confirmation before cat_cafe_remove_scheduled_task, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. It misses the anchor-5 feedback-loop/error-recovery pattern (e.g. what to do when no template matches or a preview reveals wrong timing). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single file with no bundle directories, and the body is organized into well-labeled sections (capabilities, registration flow, trigger syntax, management, common errors, skill distinctions) that are all appropriate to keep inline at ~100 lines. It is not a 5 because the trigger-syntax tables and template reference are borderline reference-file material, and the routing distinction duplicated from the frontmatter adds slight duplication. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |