evaluate-military-opportunity

Use when assessing whether to attack a seemingly weakened adversary. Provides a risk-assessment framework covering hidden enemy strengths, battle-hardened populations, diplomatic consequences, and multi-advisor consultation to avoid costly miscalculations.

Quality

77%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./kg/ontology/ontology-v1/skus/procedural/skill_084/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

71%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 content is a well-structured, lean decision framework with explicit verification checkpoints, appropriate for a short single-purpose skill. Its weakest point is actionability: it tells Claude what to consider but not concretely how to assess each factor.

Suggestions

Add concrete sub-methods under each Step (e.g., 'force ratio: compare available units to estimated enemy combatants and require >=3:1 before recommending action') to convert considerations into executable guidance.

Fold the Verification checkpoints inline after the relevant Steps (validate intelligence right after Step 1, validate dissent after Step 2) to create explicit feedback loops and push workflow_clarity to 5.

Drop or tighten the 'Expected Outcomes' section since it restates the Overview, recovering tokens without losing information.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes competence with no padding about what war or diplomacy is; the only mild redundancy is the 'Expected Outcomes' section restating the Overview, which keeps it just below the fully-lean 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	It offers concrete considerations (warning signs, questions to ask, numbered steps) but no executable procedure or specific method for how to assess each factor, leaving it at 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered Steps sequence is paired with a dedicated Verification section providing explicit checkpoints (confirm multi-source intelligence, validate dissent sought, check treaty violations); it falls short of 5 because validation is in a separate section rather than inline feedback loops within the steps.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no need for external references, yet well-organized into Overview, Decision Points, Steps, Expected Outcomes, and Verification sections — meeting the simple-skill exception for a 5.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

71%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 clearly establishes a distinct niche with explicit 'what' and 'when' guidance and several concrete coverage areas. Its main weakness is trigger breadth — a single phrasing with no synonyms or natural variations.

Suggestions

Add one or two natural trigger synonyms/variations (e.g., 'when weighing a surprise attack' or 'when an enemy appears weak') so users with different phrasings still surface the skill.

Reframe the listed coverage areas as concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Assesses hidden enemy strength, evaluates diplomatic fallout, structures multi-advisor dissent') to push specificity toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete coverage areas — 'hidden enemy strengths, battle-hardened populations, diplomatic consequences, and multi-advisor consultation' — but they are thematic domains rather than discrete executable actions, so it stops short of the comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (a risk-assessment framework covering...) and 'when' (Use when assessing whether to attack...), with the 'when' concrete but slightly narrow rather than the multi-trigger clarity of 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Provides one clear trigger phrase ('Use when assessing whether to attack a seemingly weakened adversary') but offers no synonyms or common variations a user might naturally phrase differently, missing the fuller keyword coverage of 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear, narrow niche (military opportunity assessment) with distinct triggers and minimal realistic overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 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_084/SKILL.md
Commit: 6b836e3

Reviewed: 13 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.