CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

feynman-perspective

理查德·费曼的思维框架与表达方式。基于40+个一手来源的深度调研, 提炼5个核心心智模型、8条决策启发式和完整的表达DNA。 用途:作为思维顾问,用费曼的视角分析问题、审视决策、提供反馈。 当用户提到「用费曼的视角」「费曼会怎么看」「费曼模式」「feynman perspective」「费曼学习法」时使用。 即使用户只是说「这是不是cargo cult」「命名不等于理解」「能不能做个演示替代论证」「我真的理解了还是只记住了名字」也可触发。 不要在用户只是说「帮我解释一下」「用简单的话说」等一般性请求时触发——只在涉及费曼式验证(货物崇拜检测、命名vs理解、反自欺)时激活。

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

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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, highly actionable persona skill with an exemplary checkpointed workflow and concrete worked examples. Its main weaknesses are verbosity from restating the same core principles across multiple sections, and a progressive-disclosure failure: six reference files exist but are never linked from the SKILL.md body.

Suggestions

Link the references/ bundle files from the body (e.g. under a '## 调研来源' section: '完整一手来源调研见 references/费曼著作与系统思考调研-20260404.md 等'), and move the per-model 来源证据 detail into those files so SKILL.md stays a lean overview.

De-duplicate the core principles: the 快速参考 and 反例黑名单 largely restate 核心心智模型/决策启发式 — consolidate or cross-reference instead of repeating, and merge the redundant 中文输出适配 points into the 句式/词汇 subsections.

Trim the expression DNA to concrete rules + one worked example per rule rather than restating each rule across 句式, 词汇, 节奏, 幽默, and 态度光谱.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~490-line body is mostly efficient and assumes Claude's intelligence (it does not explain physics or basic concepts), but the same handful of principles (命名≠理解, 货物崇拜, 演示>论证, 不自欺) are restated across 核心心智模型, 决策启发式, 快速参考, 反例黑名单, and 失败模式树, and the 中文输出适配 section repeats points already made in 句式/词汇, so it could be tightened — fitting the 'mostly efficient but some unnecessary explanation' anchor rather than the lean anchor above.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only persona skill it gives highly executable guidance: explicit roleplay rules (用「我」, one-time STOP disclaimer, EXIT trigger), a 3-step protocol with concrete checkpoint questions, two fully worked example dialogues, per-model 检测问题, per-heuristic 应用场景+案例, a failure-mode table with triggers/fixes/fallbacks, and an anti-pattern blacklist with concrete replacements — matching the 'fully executable, specific examples cover common cases' anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 回答工作流 is a clearly sequenced 3-step protocol (问题分类 → 研究 → 回答) with two explicit gating 🔴 CHECKPOINTS, each listing the exact questions that must be answerable before proceeding, plus a 问题分类 table and a fallback tree for error recovery — matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps and feedback loops' anchor. No destructive/batch operation cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Internal sectioning is reasonable (clear headers for 角色扮演规则, 回答工作流, 核心心智模型, 决策启发式, 表达DNA, etc.), but the 6 reference bundle files in references/ (the ~100KB of 调研 material) are never linked or signaled from the body, and content that could live in separate files (the full mental-model/heuristic/DNA details) is inlined into a ~490-line monolith — fitting the 'some structure, references not signaled, content that should be separate is inline' anchor rather than the well-signaled one-level-deep anchor above.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

90%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 with excellent trigger coverage, complete what/when guidance, and clear distinctiveness via explicit negative triggers. Its only weakness is that the stated capabilities are fairly abstract advisory actions rather than concrete operations.

Suggestions

Tighten the 'what' by stating more concrete capabilities, e.g. '检验概念是否真被理解、识别货物崇拜行为、用日常类比重构复杂概念、用费曼视角审视决策' instead of the generic '分析问题、审视决策、提供反馈'.

Consider naming the deliverable form (e.g. '输出第一人称的费曼式分析与反馈') so the action is operational rather than role-level.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain and lists a few actions ('用费曼的视角分析问题、审视决策、提供反馈', '提炼5个核心心智模型、8条决策启发式'), but these are high-level advisory actions rather than concrete operational capabilities, so it sits at the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the multi-specific-action anchor above.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' ('理查德·费曼的思维框架与表达方式...作为思维顾问...分析问题、审视决策、提供反馈') and 'when' ('当用户提到...时使用' with concrete trigger phrases), and adds negative-trigger guidance, matching the explicit-what-and-when-with-concrete-triggers anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It gives comprehensive natural trigger coverage across Chinese and English variants and synonyms ('用费曼的视角', '费曼会怎么看', '费曼模式', 'feynman perspective', '费曼学习法') plus secondary triggers ('这是不是cargo cult', '命名不等于理解', '做个演示替代论证'), matching the comprehensive-synonyms anchor.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (Feynman perspective) with distinct triggers and explicitly excludes generic overlap ('不要在用户只是说「帮我解释一下」「用简单的话说」等一般性请求时触发'), yielding minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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
alchaincyf/nuwa-skill
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.