Content
63%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 delivers genuinely actionable audit policy — concrete templates, explicit three-axis verdicts, and well-designed pressure tests — organized in a legible sequence. Its weaknesses are redundancy (the same rules restated in four forms plus narrative asides) and the absence of any progressive disclosure: all material is inlined in one long file rather than split into referenced files.
Suggestions
Deduplicate the policy statements: the 八问 checklist, the 最低证据面 paragraphs, the Common Mistakes table, and the Pressure Tests restate the same rules; consolidate each rule into one canonical location and cross-reference it.
Move the Pressure Tests and the extended field/benchmark templates into a references/ file, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep pointers.
Trim the idiosyncratic narrative asides (the F218 anecdote, Magic Words framing, and the 口诀) into short rules, since they add token cost without adding executable guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and avoids explaining basics, but the same policies are restated across the 八问 checklist, the minimum-evidence paragraphs, the Common Mistakes table, and the Pressure Tests, and idiosyncratic narrative asides (the F218 anecdote, Magic Words framing, the 口诀) add tokens without adding policy. It could be tightened meaningfully but is not heavily padded. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is largely concrete: copy-ready field templates (measured_construct, comparator, …), an explicit claim-ledger table, three named verdict scales with definitions, and worked pressure tests with expected verdicts. Some guidance stays abstract (e.g., "先换坐标系，再查细节"), keeping it below fully executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present (Trigger → lenses → ledger → 八问 → verdicts → provenance, with "先列 claim，再逐条审") and the minimum-evidence caps plus pressure tests function as explicit validation checkpoints. It falls short of 5 because error-recovery loops are only implicit in places. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so everything — the extended checklist, the Common Mistakes table, the field templates, and four pressure-test vignettes — is inlined in a ~200-line SKILL.md. Section headers are clear, but content that clearly belongs in separate reference files is inline with no pointers, matching the 'some structure' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |