CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agent-team

产品经理与项目管理专家在应对复杂项目时,使用此技能可动态组建包含“执行、指挥、评审”的专属AI团队。实时查看多智能体辩论与决策全过程,共享统一上下文记忆,一键完成从会议决策到系统构建的全流程高效协同!

48

Quality

53%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/agent-team/agent-team/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

52%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.

The skill body is well structured with a clear standard workflow, failure branches, and an excellent one-level-deep reference system with per-file read conditions. Its weaknesses are redundancy (memory and real-time-communication concepts explained repeatedly) and a descriptive rather than operational core that never specifies how teams are actually executed.

Suggestions

Consolidate the three separate shared-memory explanations (核心概念, 共享数据库记忆 section, 协作原则 #6) into one section, and move the JSON memory samples and the 20-line dialogue transcript into a reference file to cut roughly a third of the body.

State explicitly how a team is executed (e.g., whether agents are subagents spawned in parallel or personas simulated in one transcript) so the guidance is operational rather than descriptive.

Remove the inline core-role listings under 智能体分类 since they duplicate the referenced agent definition files; keep one summary line plus the link.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably verbose: the shared-database-memory concept is explained three separate times (核心概念, its own 共享数据库记忆 section, and 协作原则 #6), real-time communication is restated in nearly every section, and there is a 20-line illustrative dialogue transcript plus an extended '忙碌的AI团队公司' metaphor that adds padding. These redundant sections could be cut or merged with no loss of guidance.

2 / 5

Actionability

There is concrete guidance — a 5-step 操作步骤 flow, preset team configurations with exact invocation phrases ("请用技术决策团队评估[某技术方案]"), and a copy-able dialogue format in 方式三 — but much of the document is descriptive (role taxonomies, metaphors, JSON memory samples) and the actual execution mechanism (spawn subagents vs. simulate roles) is never specified.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 标准流程 gives a clearly sequenced 5-step process with sub-bullets, explicit branching for edge cases (simple task, urgent, deep discussion, agent failure with 降级方案), and concrete constraints ('3-6个智能体为宜'). Validation checkpoints are only implicit, but no destructive or batch operations are involved so the feedback-loop cap does not apply.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All six referenced bundle files exist, references are exactly one level deep, and the 资源索引 signals each file with a '何时读取' condition — strong navigation. However, core-role lists are duplicated inline (body plus references/), and long examples (the dialogue transcript and JSON memory samples) that belong in references are inlined in the overview.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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.

The description communicates a distinctive multi-agent team-formation capability with a few concrete actions, but its trigger conditions are vague (any 'complex project') and its tone leans on marketing filler ('一键', '高效协同!') rather than precise capability statements. It answers 'what' well but 'when' only weakly.

Suggestions

Add an explicit, concrete trigger clause listing the situations and phrasings users would actually use (e.g., '当需要组建AI团队、多智能体协作、或开展多角色决策会议时使用'), replacing the vague '应对复杂项目时'.

Remove marketing fluff ('一键完成', '全流程高效协同!') and replace with specific capability verbs that describe what the skill actually does.

Include natural keyword variations and synonyms (组队, 团队协作, 智能体编排, 决策会议) to improve trigger matching.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names its domain and 2-3 concrete actions ("动态组建包含'执行、指挥、评审'的专属AI团队", "实时查看多智能体辩论与决策全过程", "共享统一上下文记忆"), but coverage is not comprehensive and concreteness is diluted by marketing fluff ("一键完成...全流程高效协同!").

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (form a three-tier AI team, view debate, share memory), and a 'when' clause exists ("在应对复杂项目时"), but the trigger is broad and vague — nearly any complex project would match — so it is only weakly specified rather than explicit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "AI团队", "多智能体", "会议决策", and "复杂项目" are phrases a user might plausibly say, but coverage is partial — common variations and synonyms (e.g., 组队, 协作, agent/智能体编排) are missing, and "复杂项目" is generic.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (multi-agent team composition with visible debate and shared context memory) is mostly distinct with concrete differentiators, though "复杂项目" and generic collaboration language create minor overlap risk with general agent-orchestration skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 4 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
anbeime/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.