CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cheat-recommend

从 candidates.md 里按当前 rubric 排序推荐 top N 选题,每条带 composite + 一句 rationale + 锚点对比。**candidates 不存在时给引导而非报错**。触发词:"推荐选题"/"next topic"/"下一篇做什么"/"recommend topics"/"挑一个选题"。

Quality

81%

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

75%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 well-structured, highly actionable instruction skill: explicit phases, constants, decision tables, and refusal handling, with no padding and a good failure-mode philosophy (guide rather than error). Main weaknesses are the unresolved external reference paths and a few unspecified input-parsing mechanics (state file, buffer computation).

Suggestions

Resolve or inline the ../../shared-references/ links (cadence-protocol.md, candidate-schema.md) — they leave the skill bundle, so the skill cannot stand alone; either ship them as references/ files or summarize the needed rules (buffer color thresholds, candidate entry schema) inline.

Add a Phase 2 fallback for missing inputs: what to do when predictions/*.md or .cheat-state.json does not exist (e.g., treat published IDs as empty, assume green buffer) so the dedup and buffer-override steps cannot fail silently.

Tighten the Phase 0 onboarding script and Phase 4 sample outputs into a short template plus one condensed example — the two verbatim blocks are the largest token cost and partially duplicate the Key Rules.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence (composite, tier, buffer colors are never explained, only used), with no filler — but the ~30-line verbatim onboarding script in Phase 0 and the long sample output blocks could be tightened. Fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'; not 5 because those template blocks earn their tokens only partially.

4 / 5

Actionability

Exact constants (TOP_N=5, lookback formula), enumerated filter rules, a buffer-color decision table, verbatim output templates, and explicit refusal handling make this mostly executable instruction guidance; minor gaps remain — how to read state.shoots/.cheat-state.json and compute buffer color is delegated out, and predictions/*.md header format is assumed. Not 5 for those unspecified mechanics, not 3 because the guidance is concrete, not pseudocode.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0–4 are clearly sequenced with a flow diagram, an existence checkpoint in Phase 0, and a validation-with-recovery loop in Phase 1 (malformed entries → ask the user, never silently ignore), plus decision tables for buffer overrides. Not 5 because Phase 2 has no fallback if predictions/*.md or .cheat-state.json is absent, which would break the dedup/state steps; not 3 because checkpoints are explicit and recovery paths exist.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections (Overview/Constants/Inputs/Workflow/Key Rules/Refusals/Integration) with clearly signaled one-level-deep links ([cadence-protocol.md], [candidate-schema.md]). Not 5 because both referenced paths point outside the skill bundle (../../shared-references/) and no references/ directory ships with the skill, so the links cannot be resolved from the bundle itself — a structural, if minor, navigation gap.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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.

A strong description: concrete actions with an explicit bilingual trigger list and an honest fallback behavior, in third person with no fluff. Weakest spot is coverage breadth — the filtering options and buffer-state strategy that dominate the skill's actual behavior are absent from the description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"按当前 rubric 排序推荐 top N 选题,每条带 composite + 一句 rationale + 锚点对比" plus the fallback "candidates 不存在时给引导而非报错" name the source file and several concrete actions, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor; not 5 because filtering (tier/safe/risky) and buffer-color strategy overrides are omitted, not 3 because coverage exceeds 1-2 actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers what (sort candidates.md by rubric composite, recommend top N each with composite + rationale + anchor comparison, guide instead of error when the pool is missing) and when, via a dedicated 触发词 clause with concrete trigger phrases — the top anchor. The explicit trigger guidance means the 'cap completeness at 3' rule for missing 'Use when' clauses does not apply.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The 触发词 list ("推荐选题"/"next topic"/"下一篇做什么"/"recommend topics"/"挑一个选题") gives good natural bilingual keyword coverage; not 5 because common variations like "选题推荐", "help me pick a topic", or the bare command name are missing, not 3 because several natural user phrasings in both languages are present.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (ranking a candidates.md pool) with distinct triggers, but it sits in a family of sibling skills (/cheat-seed triggered by "找选题", /cheat-trends by "抓热点") whose adjacent phrasings could pull the wrong skill — 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills', not 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 suspicious

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

XBuilderLAB/cheat-on-content

Path

skills/cheat-recommend/SKILL.md

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.