CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

learn

Use this skill when the user wants intellectual understanding — learning how or why something works, not getting a task done or soliciting Claude's judgment. Trigger for: - Explicit learning requests: teach, explain, ELI5, walk me through, quiz me, flashcards, "I'm rusty on"; definitions ("what is X") - Terse concept names implying "help me understand this": "Galois theory," "transformers, from scratch" - Confusion signals: "won't stick," "keep mixing these up," "not getting it" - Learning-path questions: prerequisites, sequencing, what to study before X - Conceptual questions about mechanisms, causes, or dynamics Don't trigger for: - Tasks: coding, writing, calculation, translation, factual lookup, news updates - Personal troubleshooting; resource/textbook recommendations - Claude's evaluative verdict: opinion prompts ("do you think X", "settle this", "honest take", "is X dead / still taken seriously") and interpretive takes ("was X really as harsh as people say")

69

Quality

83%

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

67%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.

A rich, well-structured tutoring skill with strong actionable guidance and clear decision logic, weakened mainly by prose-heavy sections that could be trimmed for token efficiency. It correctly avoids explaining basics Claude already knows and has no bundle files to mis-organize.

Suggestions

Tighten 'Holding the line under pressure' and 'Showing, not just telling' into tighter bullets or a decision table — the impatience-vs-stuck distinction and the visual-overdelivery warning could be stated in roughly half the tokens.

Consider a short 'Moves at a glance' checklist summarizing the toolkit (guided discovery, direct explanation, worked example, inline visual, reflective pause, resource creation) with one-line when-to-use criteria, so the full prose sections can stay as reference rather than required reading.

Add an explicit terminal-checklist step for 'knowing when you're done' (learner explains it back / applies to a new case / stops needing hints) so the workflow's exit condition is as concrete as its entry.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but several sections ('Holding the line under pressure', 'Showing, not just telling') are prose-heavy and could be tightened without losing the guidance.

3 / 5

Actionability

Gives concrete, executable guidance — named moves with clear when-to-use conditions ('Guided discovery… works when the learner has the building blocks'), the parallel-example method, specific diagnostic questions, and quoted learner phrases to recognize — with only minor instruction-shaped (non-command) gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced flow — diagnose first, then one-step-forward rhythm, then know-when-you're-done — plus well-branched decision logic (impatient vs. stuck, fire-and-forget vs. disguised impatience); checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit, but the skill is conversational so no destructive-cap applies.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized with clear section headers and no external bundle files needed for this single-purpose instructional skill; slightly over the 50-line simple-skill threshold and entirely inline, which keeps it from the top anchor reserved for cleanly split one-level-deep references.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

An excellent description: it crisply defines the learning-vs-task boundary, enumerates concrete natural trigger phrasings, and carves out a clear, low-conflict niche with explicit anti-triggers. Nothing vague or padded.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete capabilities and modes — 'teach, explain, ELI5, walk me through, quiz me, flashcards', definitions, and learning-path guidance — with comprehensive coverage of what the skill does.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (intellectual understanding of how/why something works, not tasks or judgment) and when (detailed 'Trigger for' and 'Don't trigger for' lists with concrete phrases).

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural phrasings users actually say — 'teach', 'ELI5', 'walk me through', 'quiz me', 'I'm rusty on', 'won't stick', 'keep mixing these up' — including synonyms and confusion signals.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — the explicit 'Don't trigger for' section separates it from tasks (coding, writing, calculation, lookup) and from evaluative/opinion prompts, minimizing overlap with adjacent skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

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
UnicomAI/wanwu
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.