CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

challenge

改进你的问题

37

Quality

35%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/challenge/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is a reasonably well-structured, actionable analytical workflow for reconstructing poor questions into higher-order decision questions. Its main weaknesses are some definitional padding and the absence of validation checkpoints and a complete worked output example.

Suggestions

Tighten or move the '目标识别' and '高阶问题定义标准' definition/example blocks into a reference file to reduce conciseness overhead, keeping the core workflow lean.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint after step 4 (e.g. 'Verify the reconstructed question satisfies all three 高阶问题逻辑要素 before output') to strengthen workflow clarity.

Include one full worked example showing input 差问题 → intermediate analysis → final reconstructed 好问题 to make the actionability fully concrete.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly task-specific guidance but includes padded definition sections (e.g. '高阶问题的特征' and '目标识别' with worked examples that re-explain the concept), matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor; it is above 2 because the bulk is actionable rather than generic Claude knowledge.

3 / 5

Actionability

Steps give concrete required outputs per dimension (具体表现, 2-3替代选项, 对比结论, 机会成本) and explicit ordering, fitting 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'; it is not 5 because there is no full worked end-to-end example of a restructured '好问题' output.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence 1→目标识别→2→3→4 is explicit and ordering is enforced ('不得跳步'), but there are no validation/verification checkpoints (e.g. checking the restructured question against the 高阶问题定义标准), matching 'steps listed but checkpoints missing'; the task is analytical rather than destructive so it stays at 3 rather than dropping.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-organized SKILL.md with clearly headed sections (### numbered steps, 约束条件, 输出) and no external bundle files, fitting 'good structure; minor organization gaps'; the inconsistent mix of '### ' numbered steps with '#' mid-document subsections (目标识别, 高阶问题定义标准) keeps it below 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

8%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is far too terse and generic to function as an effective skill description. It lacks a concrete domain, explicit capabilities, and any 'Use when...' trigger guidance, leaving it indistinguishable from countless other skills.

Suggestions

State the concrete domain and actions, e.g. 'Analyzes decision questions framed as binary either/or choices and reconstructs them into higher-order, multi-dimensional decision questions considering opportunity cost and resource allocation.'

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when the user asks a narrow either/or question (e.g., should I buy/do X) or a single-option pros/cons question and needs a better decision frame.'

Include natural trigger keywords users would actually say (e.g., '要不要买', '该不该做', '机会成本', '资源配置') to improve distinctiveness and match likelihood.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description is just "改进你的问题" (Improve your question), which names no domain and no concrete actions, matching the 'entirely vague; pure abstract language' anchor; it cannot reach 2 because even the domain is unspecified.

1 / 5

Completeness

It offers an extremely vague 'what' (improve your question) and no 'when'/Use-when clause, fitting the 'vague what and no when' anchor; it is not a 1 because a (vague) action is named, and capped below 3 by the missing trigger guidance.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The phrase "改进你的问题" contains no natural trigger keywords a user would say to invoke this skill, only generic language; it sits below the score-2 anchor ('Works with files') which at least names a target.

1 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"改进你的问题" is entirely generic and would conflict with virtually any analytical or advisory skill, matching the score-1 anchor; no niche or distinct trigger is present.

1 / 5

Total

5

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

description_field

'description' is very short (6 chars), consider making it more detailed

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Leo-stone-dot/my_life_agent
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.