CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

information-verification-through-provocation

Use when verifying rumors or sensitive intelligence without direct confrontation. Involves selecting an emotionally reactive proxy, designing a calibrated provocation to trigger unguarded responses, and interpreting reactions to confirm or deny suspected information, as demonstrated by Prince Shangchen.

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

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

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.

A tight, well-structured instruction-only skill with a clear sequenced workflow and an explicit verification section that closes the loop. The main gap is actionability: the 'calibration' step tells the reader to calibrate without explaining how to gauge the right intensity.

Suggestions

Add concrete guidance for step 3 calibration — e.g., signal ranges for the provocation's intensity (a mild slight that can be apologized for vs. a grave insult) and how to read the target's baseline demeanor before escalating.

In the Example, annotate which step each action maps to (proxy selection, provocation design, reaction interpretation) so the worked example doubles as an executable walkthrough rather than a narrative.

Clarify the abort/repair path in Verification: what to do when the provocation risks irreversible relationship damage (step 2), so the feedback loop covers recovery, not just detection.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean — a one-sentence overview, terse bulleted steps, and a compact example — with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Steps give directional guidance ('Create a scenario where disrespect or slight offense is delivered', 'calibrated to provoke honest reaction') but lack concrete calibration detail on how to size the provocation, so guidance is actionable yet incomplete. It is not a 1 because it does instruct rather than merely describe, and not a 3 because key 'how much' detail is missing.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps are followed by a Verification section that functions as explicit validation checkpoints (confirm target knowledge, validate calibration, distinguish reaction types), satisfying the rubric's call for explicit verification in potentially relationship-damaging operations.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references and is organized into well-signaled sections (Overview, Steps, Example, Expected Outcome, Verification), which the rubric notes merits a 3 for such simple single-purpose skills.

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 well-constructed description with explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance and concrete, multi-action capability framing. Its only weakness is trigger-term breadth — the core phrase is natural but the surrounding vocabulary is somewhat specialized.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'selecting an emotionally reactive proxy, designing a calibrated provocation to trigger unguarded responses, and interpreting reactions to confirm or deny suspected information' — matching the anchor for several specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

It answers both halves explicitly: an explicit trigger clause 'Use when verifying rumors or sensitive intelligence without direct confrontation' (when) and 'Involves selecting... designing... and interpreting...' (what). It is not a 2 because the 'when' is explicit, not merely implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'verifying rumors' is a natural user phrase, but 'sensitive intelligence without direct confrontation' leans toward jargon and common variations (e.g. 'fact-checking a claim', 'testing if a rumor is true') are missing, so coverage is partial rather than comprehensive.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Provocation-based indirect verification is a clear, narrow niche with the unusual Prince Shangchen reference, making it unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills.

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.