strategic-military-intervention

Use when official channels block necessary military action to save an ally. Plans unauthorized intervention by leveraging debts, securing command assets, and executing swift action despite formal obstacles.

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Quality

Content

78%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 a lean, well-structured instruction-only skill with a clear sequence and a verification section. Its weakness is actionability: the steps are high-level strategic directives rather than concrete, executable procedures.

Suggestions

Add concrete execution detail to each step (e.g., how to identify and call in a debt, how to locate and secure a specific command asset) instead of leaving them as 'Identify/Assess/Determine' directives.

Embed validation checkpoints inline within the 10-step sequence (e.g., after securing assets, verify sufficiency before proceeding) with explicit feedback loops for what to do when a check fails.

Provide a worked example or template (e.g., a sample asset/motivation map or a contingency checklist) to make the guidance copy-paste ready rather than abstract.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~33-line body is lean with no concept over-explanation or padding; every section (Overview, Steps, Decision Points, Expected Outcomes, Verification) earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor.	5 / 5
Actionability	Steps name clear strategic actions ('Request assistance from those who owe you', 'Prepare contingency enforcers') but lack execution detail on how to accomplish each; many steps are 'Identify/Assess/Determine' directives that stay at a planning level rather than giving concrete procedure, matching the some-concrete-guidance-but-incomplete anchor.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 10 steps are clearly sequenced and a Verification section provides checkpoints, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply; not a 5 because validation lives in a separate post-hoc section with no inline feedback loops (validate -> fix -> retry) within the workflow.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, yet organized into clear, well-labeled sections, qualifying for the top anchor under the simple-skill exception.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 is well-formed: third-person voice, explicit 'Use when' trigger, and concrete actions covering both what and when. It is distinct and unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions — 'leveraging debts, securing command assets, and executing swift action' — comparable to the anchor listing 3 specific actions, with minor coverage gaps; not a 5 because the actions are stated at a strategic rather than fully concrete level.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Plans unauthorized intervention by leveraging debts, securing command assets, and executing swift action') and 'when' ('Use when official channels block necessary military action to save an ally') with a concrete trigger phrase, matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The 'Use when official channels block necessary military action to save an ally' clause surfaces several natural scenario terms (military action, ally, intervention, command assets); not a 5 because synonym/variation coverage is thin for the niche.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The trigger scenario (official channels blocking action to save an ally) is a narrow, distinct niche with minimal overlap risk against other skills, matching the clear-niche anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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_165/SKILL.md
Commit: 6b836e3

Reviewed: 7 hours 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.