diplomatic-intervention-persuasion

Use when persuading a powerful but hesitant ally to provide military assistance during a crisis. Covers acknowledging the situation, establishing the value relationship, presenting urgency arguments, articulating consequences of inaction, and framing the ally's loss from delayed intervention.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

85%

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

A concise, well-organized persuasion framework with a clear sequenced workflow and explicit verification checkpoints. Its main gap is actionability: some steps describe strategic intent rather than giving concrete, ready-to-use phrasing.

Suggestions

Turn intent-level steps into concrete instructions, e.g. replace 'Address why they have not yet acted' with a specific prompt such as 'Ask the ally directly what is delaying their decision and reframe the delay as a misread of urgency'.

Add one short annotated example message applying all five steps end-to-end so the talking points become copy-paste-ready guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Overview, Steps, Expected Outcome, Verification) earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor.	3 / 3
Actionability	It gives concrete talking points ('forced to make separate peace', 'territorial concessions', 'losing one ally while strengthening two enemies') but several steps remain strategic framing rather than executable phrasing — e.g. 'Recognize that the ally knows of your distress' and 'Address why they have not yet acted' describe intent rather than instruct — so it is 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced five-step process is followed by a Verification section with three explicit checkpoints, providing the feedback loop the top anchor rewards.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references and is organized into clear sections (Overview, Steps, Expected Outcome, Verification); per the simple-skills scoring note, that earns the top score. No bundle files exist to verify, and none are referenced in the body.	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.

A strong, well-structured description that clearly states both capability and trigger with concrete sub-actions and a distinctive niche. Its only weakness is trigger-term breadth, relying on a single phrasing rather than covering natural variations a user might actually say.

Suggestions

Broaden trigger terms to include natural variations such as 'convince an ally to intervene', 'persuade a partner to send troops', or 'negotiate military support during a crisis'.

Consider adding a synonym like 'convince' or 'pressure' so the trigger fires for users who phrase the request differently.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'acknowledging the situation, establishing the value relationship, presenting urgency arguments, articulating consequences of inaction, and framing the ally's loss' — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what ('Covers acknowledging the situation... framing the ally's loss') and when ('Use when persuading... during a crisis') with an explicit trigger clause, matching the top anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'Use when persuading a powerful but hesitant ally to provide military assistance during a crisis' contains relevant keywords, but it stays in one register and omits common variations a user might say ('convince', 'intervene', 'send troops', 'negotiate'), so it is 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than full coverage.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche — persuading a hesitant powerful ally into military intervention during a crisis — is highly specific with distinct triggers and is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: baojie/shiji-kb
Path: kg/ontology/ontology-v1/skus/procedural/skill_120/SKILL.md
Commit: 79c272f

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.