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.
An unusually high-signal meta-skill: nearly every section encodes house-specific know-how (gates, exemplars, templates, exact pnpm commands, provider adapter contracts) rather than generic tutorials, and publishing is gated by explicit checks. Its main costs are duplicated value-gate content that re-treads the same table, and two dead "(internal reference removed)" pointers that break the otherwise clean on-demand reading structure.
Suggestions
Merge the opening 价值门禁 table with the T0-0 载体选择 table into a single gate section — they cover the same decision and currently force the reader through it twice.
Resolve or remove the two '*(internal reference removed)*' citations (T0-1 进场门票机制 and the 知识工程完整方法论 row in 深入学习) so every reference in the reading tables navigates to a real file.
Add one numbered end-to-end authoring workflow (gate → exemplar → draft from template → publish checks → next) so the sequenced pieces currently spread across sections read as a single path with validation checkpoints.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is largely dense, house-specific tables, but the value-gate material is stated twice ("写 skill 前先判定：它是不是在给聪明 agent 复述训练集里已经很强的通用知识？" with a 5-row table at the top, then again as "T0-0：Skill 价值门禁" with a second overlapping table), and sections like "T0-1" re-explain Claude-visible mechanisms (the three-layer loading model) that border on general knowledge. This matches the 3 anchor ("mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened") — below 4 because the duplication and re-teaching are more than minor, above 2 because there is no padding of the "what is a PDF" variety. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Quotes: the copy-paste "## SKILL.md 结构模板" markdown skeleton; exact commands "pnpm sync:skills（不要手动 ln -s）", "pnpm check:skills、pnpm check:skills:references、pnpm check:skills:surfaces 全绿"; and concrete config fields "SKILL.md frontmatter 写 disable-model-invocation: true" / "agents/openai.yaml 写 policy.allow_implicit_invocation: false". Per the code-vs-instruction note, this instruction-only skill's guidance is fully concrete and covers the common cases, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4 ("minor gaps"). | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The publishing path is a clear 5-step sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint ("4. 验证：pnpm check:skills ... 全绿；... 再跑该 claim 对应的定向 checker/test" plus conditional gate escalation), and "下一步" chains onward. However, the authoring workflow itself (value gate → read exemplar → write → publish) is distributed across separate sections rather than given as one sequenced path with checkpoints, so it matches the 4 anchor ("clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps") — not 5, since the RED-scenario/validation guidance for the writing phase is referenced only obliquely ("先看 agent 在无 skill 时怎么失败"). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The "深入学习（按需阅读）" table signals one-level-deep references with purpose notes ("writing-skills/cat-cafe-skill-quality-principles.md" — 废话 skill 判定; "../.cat-cafe-shared-refs/mcp-tool-description-standard.md" — 好/差对比), and the exemplar table plays the same role, so heavy material is correctly offloaded. It falls short of the 5 anchor because two citations are literally "*(internal reference removed)*" (in T0-1 and the 深入学习 table) — references that navigate nowhere — and the remaining referenced paths sit outside the bundle and cannot be verified, matching 4's "references mostly clear; minor organization gaps". | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |