li-gong-demo
模拟李工（后端工程师）在架构评审、发布流程、跨团队对齐场景下的工作方式与沟通边界。用于团队内部对齐与培训。
51
57%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./examples/li-gong-demo/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
42%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 identifies a clear and distinctive niche — simulating a specific backend engineer persona for team alignment and training scenarios. However, it lacks concrete action verbs describing what the skill actually does, has weak trigger term coverage, and does not include an explicit 'Use when...' clause to guide skill selection.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., '当用户需要模拟后端工程师角色、进行架构评审演练、发布流程培训或跨团队沟通练习时使用'.
Include natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'role-play', '角色扮演', '李工', 'backend engineer simulation', '架构评审练习', '发布流程演练'.
List specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., '回答架构设计问题、模拟发布审批对话、演示跨团队沟通话术'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a domain (simulating a backend engineer's work style) and mentions specific scenarios (architecture review, release process, cross-team alignment), but does not list concrete actions the skill performs beyond 'simulating' behavior and 'communication boundaries'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is partially addressed (simulate Li Gong's work style and communication boundaries), and the 'when' is implied ('用于团队内部对齐与培训' — for internal team alignment and training), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger conditions for Claude to know when to select this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The description uses domain-specific Chinese terms like '架构评审', '发布流程', '跨团队对齐' which are relevant but niche. It lacks natural trigger terms a user would say when needing this skill — terms like 'role-play', 'persona', 'Li Gong', or common variations are not well-covered. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | This skill is highly distinctive — it simulates a specific named persona (李工, a backend engineer) in specific scenarios. It is unlikely to conflict with other skills due to its unique niche of persona simulation for team training. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, concise persona/role-play skill that serves as an effective routing document to supporting files. Its main weakness is that the SKILL.md itself contains almost no actionable content—all concrete guidance is deferred to external files, making it impossible to evaluate whether the skill actually delivers on its promise. The limitations section is a nice touch for setting expectations.
Suggestions
Add a brief concrete example of how 李工 would respond in one of the key scenarios (e.g., architecture review or release process) so the skill has at least one actionable reference point without needing external files.
Include a fallback or validation step for when referenced files (interaction.md, procedure.md, conflicts.md) are missing or incomplete, to improve workflow robustness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient. Every line serves a purpose—role definition, execution rules, limitations, and disclaimers are all tightly written with no unnecessary explanation of concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear sequence of which files to read and when, but the actual actionable content is entirely delegated to external files (interaction.md, procedure.md, conflicts.md). The SKILL.md itself contains no concrete examples, commands, or executable guidance—it's a routing document. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered steps provide a clear sequence for deciding how to handle tasks (read interaction.md first, then procedure.md, then conflicts.md for edge cases). However, there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops—no guidance on what to do if the referenced files are missing, incomplete, or contradictory beyond 'read conflicts.md'. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is well-structured as a concise overview that clearly signals one-level-deep references to interaction.md, procedure.md, and conflicts.md, each with a clear purpose. Navigation is straightforward and appropriately split. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 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 — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- agenmod/immortal-skill
- Commit
cdab91b
- 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.