eval-clarity

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Eval Clarity

清晰度评估

Use this skill to evaluate how clear and understandable an assistant response is.

使用此技能来评估助手回复的清晰易懂程度。

Inputs

输入要求

Require:

The assistant response text to evaluate.

必填：

待评估的助手回复文本。

Internal Rubric (1–5)

内部评分标准（1–5分）

5 = Structured, unambiguous, direct answer, minimal fluff
4 = Mostly clear, minor ambiguity or verbosity
3 = Understandable but lacks structure or precision
2 = Vague, missing key steps, hard to follow
1 = Confusing, contradictory, or unclear

5分 = 结构清晰、表述明确、回答直接、冗余内容极少
4分 = 整体清晰，仅存在轻微歧义或冗余
3分 = 可理解但缺乏结构或精准度
2分 = 表述模糊、缺少关键步骤、难以理解
1分 = 令人困惑、自相矛盾或表述不清

Workflow

工作流程

Assess structure, precision, and readability.
Score clarity on a 1-5 integer scale using the rubric only.
Write concise rationale tied directly to rubric criteria.
Produce actionable suggestions that improve clarity.

评估回复的结构、精准度和可读性。
仅使用上述评分标准，以1-5的整数为清晰度打分。
撰写与评分标准直接关联的简洁理由。
提出可提升清晰度的可行建议。

Output Contract

输出约定

Return JSON only. Do not include markdown, backticks, prose, or extra keys.

Use exactly this schema:

{ "dimension": "clarity", "score": 1, "rationale": "...", "improvement_suggestions": [ "..." ] }

仅返回JSON格式内容。请勿包含markdown格式、反引号、散文或额外的键值对。

请严格使用以下格式：

{ "dimension": "clarity", "score": 1, "rationale": "...", "improvement_suggestions": [ "..." ] }

Hard Rules

硬性规则

```
dimension
```
must always equal
```
"clarity"
```
.
```
score
```
must be an integer from 1 to 5.
```
rationale
```
must be concise (max 3 sentences).
Do not include step-by-step reasoning.
```
improvement_suggestions
```
must be a non-empty array of concrete edits.
Never output text outside the JSON object.

```
dimension
```
必须始终等于
```
"clarity"
```
。
```
score
```
必须是1到5之间的整数。
```
rationale
```
必须简洁（最多3句话）。
请勿包含分步推理内容。
```
improvement_suggestions
```
必须是非空的具体修改建议数组。
绝不要在JSON对象之外输出任何内容。