CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comparative-state-analysis

Use when comparing competing states or explaining why weaker parties prevail. Analyzes material resources, leadership quality, and intangible factors like popular support, governance quality, moral legitimacy, and application of benevolence (仁义).

70

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

85%

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

The body is concise, well-sequenced, and includes explicit validation, making it a solidly structured analytical workflow. Its main gap is actionability: it tells Claude what factors to consider but not how to weigh them or apply them via a worked example.

Suggestions

Add a short worked example (e.g., a brief side-by-side comparison of two states with the intangible factor that decided the outcome) to convert the factor checklists into a concrete, repeatable procedure.

Provide a lightweight decision rule or weighting heuristic for resolving discrepancies (e.g., 'when material and intangible factors conflict, weight governance quality and popular support most heavily') so the analysis is reproducible rather than open-ended.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean throughout — a one-line overview, tight bulleted factor lists, and a compact validation section with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows — fitting the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor rather than the unnecessary-explanation anchor at 2.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete factors to examine (e.g., 'Territory size', 'Population/military numbers', 'application of benevolence (仁义)') but stops at checklists with no worked example, concrete analytical procedure, or decision rule for how to weigh factors, fitting the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor rather than fully actionable guidance at 3.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

It lays out a clear four-step sequence (Material → Leadership → Identify Discrepancies → Root Cause) and closes with an explicit Validation section containing three verification checks, matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps' anchor; not 2 because checkpoints are present rather than merely implicit.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a sub-50-line single-purpose analytical skill with no need for external references, and its sections (Overview, Steps, Expected Outcomes, Validation) are well-organized, so per the simple-skills scoring note progressive disclosure scores 3 without separate reference files.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

85%

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 is strong: it pairs an explicit 'Use when' trigger with a concrete, well-enumerated set of analytical factors and occupies a distinctive niche. Its only weakness is trigger-term naturalness, which leans academic rather than reflecting phrasings a typical user would utter.

Suggestions

Add more natural-language trigger variants users might actually say (e.g., 'why the underdog won', 'why a smaller kingdom defeated a larger one', 'comparing two rival states') alongside the current academic phrasing.

Consider mentioning concrete output artifacts the skill produces (e.g., 'produces a side-by-side factor comparison') to make the 'what' even more actionable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It enumerates multiple concrete analysis targets — 'material resources, leadership quality, and intangible factors like popular support, governance quality, moral legitimacy, and application of benevolence (仁义)' — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor rather than the partial domain-only anchor at 2.

3 / 3

Completeness

It answers both what ('Analyzes material resources, leadership quality, and intangible factors...') and when via an explicit 'Use when...' clause, matching the anchor requiring both an explicit what and explicit triggers; not 2 because the when-guidance is explicit, not merely implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers 'comparing competing states' and 'explaining why weaker parties prevail' are relevant but specialized academic phrasing, missing common natural variations a casual user might say; this fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than the broad natural-term coverage at 3.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — comparative state analysis framed around weaker parties prevailing and 仁义/benevolence — is distinctive with triggers unlikely to collide with generic skills, fitting the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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.