CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

1k-group-think

Spawns a team of 3 AI agents with different analytical perspectives to collaboratively analyze a problem, propose solutions, and debate trade-offs. Use when facing bugs, design decisions, architecture choices, or any task that benefits from multiple viewpoints. Agents discuss with each other, then present a comparison table for the user to decide. Triggers on "group think", "multi-agent", "team analysis", "3 agents", "collaborative analysis", "debate solutions".

70

Quality

85%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

Highly actionable with a clear, well-validated multi-step workflow, but it is token-heavy and monolithic — a large inline prompt template and repeated warnings keep conciseness and progressive disclosure below the top anchor.

Suggestions

Move the 90-line agent prompt template (Step 5) into a references/agent-prompt.md file and link to it from SKILL.md to cut token load and add one-level-deep progressive disclosure.

Deduplicate the 'NEVER use run_in_background: true' warning (lines 31, 105, 265) — state it once in the 'Critical: Team Members vs Subagents' section and remove the repeats.

Trim explanatory asides Claude can infer, e.g. 'Agents are expensive — giving them rich context upfront is far cheaper than having 3 agents each fumble through exploration independently.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~280-line body is mostly actionable but not lean: a 90-line agent prompt template is embedded inline and the warning 'NEVER use run_in_background: true' is repeated three times (lines 31, 105, 265), so it could be tightened rather than earning the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance — exact TeamCreate/TaskCreate/Task parameter blocks, a full agent prompt template, and precise SendMessage formats with type/recipient/summary fields — matching the fully-executable anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Eight clearly numbered steps with an explicit monitoring/feedback checkpoint in Step 6 ('Verify agents are actually messaging each other', 'Nudge if needed') and an 'Important Rules' checklist, satisfying the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the skill is a monolithic single file; the large inline agent prompt template is content that should be split into a reference, matching the 'content that should be separate is inline' anchor rather than well-signaled one-level-deep references.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

92%

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

A strong, concrete description that answers what and when with explicit trigger terms. Its one weakness is a broad 'when' clause that could overlap with general analysis skills, slightly weakening distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Spawns a team of 3 AI agents... analyze a problem, propose solutions, and debate trade-offs... present a comparison table for the user to decide' — matching the anchor for several specific concrete actions rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what (spawn/analyze/propose/debate/present) and when via an explicit 'Use when facing bugs, design decisions, architecture choices...' clause plus a 'Triggers on...' list, satisfying the highest anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Triggers on' clause covers 'multi-agent', 'team analysis', '3 agents', 'collaborative analysis', 'debate solutions' — natural terms a user would say; only 'group think' is semantically off (it denotes a conformity bias), but overall coverage is good.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Use when... any task that benefits from multiple viewpoints' clause is broad and overlaps with general debugging/architecture/code-review skills; only the multi-agent trigger terms distinguish it, matching the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor rather than a clear conflict-free niche.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
OneKeyHQ/app-monorepo
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.