CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

alliance-building-diplomacy

Use when building multi-state coalitions or diplomatic alliances against a dominant threat. Applies Su Qin's 合纵 strategy — analyzing each party's geography, military strength, and fears, then proposing concrete mutual defense terms with specific obligations per member.

69

Quality

85%

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

70%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-structured with a clear sequence and an explicit validation checklist, but several sections are generic and much of the per-party guidance stays at the level of abstract directive rather than concrete, reusable instruction.

Suggestions

Tighten or remove the Overview and Expected Outcome sections, which restate what the Steps already show, and consider trimming the classical quote to a one-line citation so every remaining token aids execution.

Convert the vague per-party bullets (e.g. "Appeal to ambition and leadership role", "Show how isolation leads to conquest") into concrete argument templates or fill-in prompts, mirroring the specificity of the Step 4 troop-allocation example.

Add 1–2 more worked examples like the Step 4 one — e.g. a sample obligations table keyed to a different threat scenario — so the guidance is copy-ready rather than directional.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly lean bullet points that assume Claude's competence, but the Overview ("A systematic approach to building coalitions...") and Expected Outcome ("A functioning coalition with clear mutual obligations...") are generic restatements, and the classical quote adds tokens that don't directly aid execution. Not score 3 because some sections could be tightened; not score 1 because there is no padding with concepts Claude already knows.

2 / 3

Actionability

Step 4 gives a concrete example ("If Qin attacks Chu, Qi and Wei send troops; Han cuts supply lines; Zhao crosses the river"), but many bullets are vague directives such as "Appeal to ambition and leadership role" and "Show how isolation leads to conquest". Not score 3 because guidance is incomplete and largely abstract; not score 1 because at least one specific, copy-ready example exists.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered 1–5 sequence is paired with an explicit Validation section listing three verification checks, functioning as a checklist. Not score 2 because validation is explicit rather than implicit; the operation is not destructive/batch, so the cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A ~50-line, single-purpose skill with no need for external references, organized into clearly labeled sections (Steps, Key Insight, Validation). Per the simple-skill scoring note, well-organized sections alone warrant a 3 here.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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: third-person voice, explicit "Use when" trigger, multiple concrete actions, and a distinct niche. It cleanly satisfies every dimension without padding or over-claiming.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "analyzing each party's geography, military strength, and fears, then proposing concrete mutual defense terms with specific obligations per member" — matching the score-3 anchor rather than the single-action score-2 anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both when ("Use when building multi-state coalitions...") and what (the analysis-and-terms strategy), satisfying the both-what-and-when anchor. Not score 2 because the trigger is explicit, not merely implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"building multi-state coalitions or diplomatic alliances against a dominant threat" uses natural terms a user would say; the historical 合纵 framing is supplementary, not the trigger. Not score 2 because coverage of common phrasings is solid rather than partial.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — coalition/alliance-building against a dominant threat with the Su Qin framing — unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not score 2 because the triggers are specific enough to avoid overlap.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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
baojie/shiji-kb
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.