persuasion-through-fictional-dialogue

Use when presenting criticism indirectly to powerful audiences. Creates fictional characters (like Zixu 子虚, Wuyou 乌有先生) representing competing viewpoints, then resolves through an authoritative voice delivering moral instruction.

Quality

79%

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_232/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

85%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 body is lean, well-structured, and offers a clear sequenced workflow with explicit verification, well-suited to a simple instruction-only skill. Its only weakness is that the guidance is structural/conceptual rather than fully executable, leaving minor actionability gaps.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean and well-organized with no padding about concepts Claude already knows; only minor instances of abstract phrasing that could be trimmed, fitting 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation'.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete structural steps, a worked example with named characters from 'Zixu Fu', a 5-step application sequence, and a verification checklist — mostly concrete guidance with minor gaps rather than fully copy-paste-ready output.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced 5-step structure plus a separate application sequence and an explicit verification section with checkpoints, matching 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps'.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A simple, under-50-line, single-purpose skill with well-organized sections and no external references needed, qualifying for the simple-skill exception to score 5.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 identifies a niche technique with an explicit 'Use when' trigger and both what/when answered, but its trigger-term coverage is narrow and its actions are conceptual rather than comprehensive. It sits just above the midpoint of the rubric.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger synonyms users might actually say (e.g., 'persuasion through dialogue', 'indirect criticism', 'allegorical argument') to broaden keyword coverage.

Tighten the 'when' clause with concrete scenarios (e.g., 'Use when critiquing a superior's position, framing policy disagreements, or softening sensitive rebukes').

Expand the what with one or two more concrete actions (e.g., 'stages competing monologues, introduces a transcendent arbiter, ends with moral instruction').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the literary domain and 1-2 concrete actions ('Creates fictional characters', 'resolves through an authoritative voice delivering moral instruction'), but coverage is conceptual rather than comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly states both the what ('Creates fictional characters... resolves through an authoritative voice') and the when ('Use when presenting criticism indirectly to powerful audiences'); the when clause is explicit but could be more specific.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Has one relevant natural phrase ('presenting criticism indirectly') but lacks common synonyms, variations, or terms users would naturally invoke, fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A distinct niche (fictional dialogue persuasion) with clear triggers; minor overlap risk only with closely related writing/persuasion skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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_232/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.