skills/lark-drive/references/lark-drive-search.md (2)

30-30: 💤 Low value

Consider adding a note about the <YYYY-MM-DD> placeholder format.

The use of <YYYY-MM-DD> placeholder on line 30 is correct per the guidance on line 209, but readers might find it clearer if the mapping table included a brief note indicating that angle-bracketed dates are runtime placeholders. Line 37 shows a concrete example for a specific historical month (March 2026), which provides a good contrast, but the distinction could be more explicit.

📝 Suggested clarification

Option 1: Add a footnote after the table explaining placeholder notation.

Option 2: Add an inline note to line 30's example:

-| 我这月创建的所有文档，按类型分类统计 | `lark-cli drive +search --query "" --mine --created-since "<YYYY-MM-DD>" --created-until "<YYYY-MM-DD>"` |
+| 我这月创建的所有文档，按类型分类统计 | `lark-cli drive +search --query "" --mine --created-since "<YYYY-MM-DD>" --created-until "<YYYY-MM-DD>"` (运行时计算) |

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@skills/lark-drive/references/lark-drive-search.md` at line 30, Add a short
clarification that angle-bracketed dates are runtime placeholders and must
follow the YYYY-MM-DD format for the table row containing the command `lark-cli
drive +search --query "" --mine --created-since "<YYYY-MM-DD>" --created-until
"<YYYY-MM-DD>"`; implement this by either appending a brief inline note to that
table cell (e.g., "(use YYYY-MM-DD; <> = placeholder)") or adding a footnote
below the table referencing the guidance already documented near the existing
example on line 37 and line 209, so readers clearly understand the placeholder
format.

---

86-94: 💤 Low value

Consider clarifying "非污染" (non-polluted) evidence.

Line 93 mentions preserving "非污染、可解释的 evidence" but doesn't define what constitutes "polluted" evidence. While the context suggests it relates to irrelevant or misleading results, an example or brief definition would improve clarity.

💡 Suggested clarification

Consider adding a brief explanation:

-每轮扩展都要保留非污染、可解释的 evidence（URL/token/标题/摘要）；不能因为某个扩展词搜到高相似标题就跳过证据核验。
+每轮扩展都要保留非污染、可解释的 evidence（URL/token/标题/摘要），即与查询主题直接相关、不包含无关内容的结果；不能因为某个扩展词搜到高相似标题就跳过证据核验。

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@skills/lark-drive/references/lark-drive-search.md` around lines 86 - 94, 在第
93 行把模糊的“非污染、可解释的 evidence”改为一个简短定义并给出示例：说明“非污染”指的是与查询直接相关、可追溯且可验证的证明性片段（例如
URL、检索到的
token、标题、摘要、发布时间），并列出何为“污染”证据以便识别（例如与主题无关或语义漂移的段落、自动生成的低质量内容、缺少来源或付费/受限内容无法验证），同时在同一句里强调保留证据的字段（URL/token/标题/摘要）以便核验并避免因扩展词直接跳过证据核验（在文档中引用“非污染、可解释的
evidence”这一短语以便替换）。