CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

strategic-cost-benefit-analysis

Use when evaluating whether a military action inadvertently strengthens rivals or when analyzing second-order strategic consequences. Based on Hu Yan's advice against attacking Pu — assessing whether success helps your enemies more than yourself and recommending alternatives when it does.

67

Quality

80%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./kg/ontology/ontology-v1/skus/procedural/skill_147/SKILL.md
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 a concise, well-organized analytical workflow with a clear five-step sequence and an explicit validation section with decision checkpoints. Its main weakness is actionability: the guidance is instructional prompting rather than fully executable, worked-through examples.

Suggestions

Add at least one fully worked example tracing a concrete scenario through the five steps (e.g., a sample target, the consequence chain, and the resulting recommendation) so the guidance is copy-paste-ready rather than abstract.

Consider framing the Validation items as explicit pass/fail checks ('If X holds, proceed; otherwise do not') to make the decision logic executable step-by-step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and efficient — short bullets and one-line directives with no padding, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every line earning its place, matching the level-3 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

The steps give useful concrete prompts ('Map the full chain of consequences: target capture leads to which power shift... which benefits whom') and a clear decision framework, but the guidance is instructional prompting rather than executable code/commands and lacks fully worked examples, placing it at level-2 'some concrete guidance but incomplete.'

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The five steps are clearly sequenced and the Validation section provides explicit checkpoints with feedback reasoning ('if the chain ends at a rival's gain, do not proceed'), satisfying the level-3 anchor of a clear sequence with explicit validation steps for this analytical workflow.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a short, single-purpose skill with no bundle files and no need for external references; the content is well-organized into focused sections (Overview, Steps, Decision Framework, Expected Outcomes, Validation), which per the simple-skills scoring note earns a 3.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

75%

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 states both what the skill does and when to use it, with an explicit 'Use when...' trigger and a distinctive, narrowly-scoped niche that minimizes conflict risk. It is slightly held back by moderately abstract action verbs and somewhat specialized trigger terms that a user may not voice naturally.

Suggestions

Add a couple of plain-spoken trigger phrasings a user would actually say (e.g., 'when deciding whether to attack,' 'cost-benefit of an attack'), alongside the existing specialized terms.

Tighten the concrete actions so they read as a fuller list of specific operations (e.g., 'map the consequence chain, weigh who benefits, and draft an alternative') rather than a single abstract assessment.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain and concrete actions ('evaluating whether a military action inadvertently strengthens rivals,' 'assessing whether success helps your enemies,' 'recommending alternatives'), but the actions are somewhat abstract analytical steps rather than a comprehensive list of concrete operations, so it sits at 'Names domain and some actions' rather than the multi-action level 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It clearly answers both what ('assessing whether success helps your enemies more than yourself and recommending alternatives') and when via the explicit 'Use when...' clause ('evaluating whether a military action inadvertently strengthens rivals or when analyzing second-order strategic consequences'), satisfying the level-3 anchor of explicit triggers plus a clear what.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It uses natural phrasing like 'evaluating whether a military action,' 'second-order strategic consequences,' and 'strengthening rivals,' but these are fairly specialized terms a user might not spontaneously say; common variations a user would voice ('should I attack,' 'cost-benefit of an attack') are missing, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations.'

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is narrow and distinctive (second-order strategic-consequence analysis of military actions, anchored to a specific historical case), with triggers tied to a precise scenario that is unlikely to overlap with other skills, matching the level-3 'clear niche with distinct triggers; unlikely to conflict.'

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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.