warning-against-appeasement-policy

Use when evaluating territorial concessions or appeasement strategies against aggressive neighbors. Applies the 抱薪救火 (carrying firewood to extinguish fire) framework to expose why each concession emboldens further demands and weakens negotiating position.

Quality

80%

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

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.

A compact, well-structured analytical framework skill that provides specific, actionable analysis steps and an explicit validation section without padding. It would benefit from a worked example and slightly less restatement of the core analogy.

Suggestions

Add one brief worked example (e.g., a historical or hypothetical concession scenario walked through the four steps) to lift actionability from concrete guidance to fully copy-paste-ready reasoning.

Remove the restatement of the firewood analogy between 'Core Principle' and step 4, or collapse them, to tighten conciseness toward a 5.

Add an explicit feedback note in Validation (e.g., 'if a concession fails the test, return to step 1 and re-evaluate motivations') to give the workflow a clear retry loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean: numbered analysis steps with tight sub-bullets and a concrete validation checklist. Minor padding exists (the opening line restates the description, and the firewood analogy is restated across 'Core Principle' and step 4), so it is not a 5; it is well above the verbose 3 anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	For an instruction-only analytical skill, guidance is concrete and specific: each analysis step names exact things to check ('the official proposing concession seeks personal advancement (the seal of office)', 'map remaining concession-able assets and project when they would be exhausted'). Not a 5 because no worked example or template is provided; above 3 because the steps are directly executable rather than vague.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear sequence is present (Analysis Steps 1-4 → Expected Outcome → Validation) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Confirm whether...', 'Verify that...', 'Test the analogy: map... and project...'). Not a 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery/feedback loop, though that is less critical for a non-destructive analytical skill; above 3 because checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and has no bundle files (references/scripts/assets absent), yet is organized into clearly labeled sections (Overview, Core Principle, Analysis Steps, Expected Outcome, Validation). Per the simple-skill exception this earns a 5 with well-organized sections and no nested references.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

82%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.

A strong, third-person description that explicitly pairs a concrete trigger ('Use when...') with a clear statement of what the skill does, anchored in a distinctive named framework. The only weakness is that the action set is a single analytical thrust rather than multiple distinct capabilities.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('territorial concessions or appeasement strategies against aggressive neighbors') and 1-2 analytical actions ('evaluating', 'expose why each concession emboldens further demands'), but the actions are conceptual rather than a comprehensive set of concrete operations. Not a 4 because coverage of distinct capabilities is limited to a single analytical thrust; not a 2 because the domain and a concrete framing action are clearly stated.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both: 'what' ('Applies the 抱薪救火 framework to expose why each concession emboldens further demands and weakens negotiating position') and 'when' ('Use when evaluating territorial concessions or appeasement strategies against aggressive neighbors') with concrete trigger phrases. Clearly matches the 5 anchor; not downgraded since neither clause is vague.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural domain terms a user would actually say are present: 'territorial concessions', 'appeasement strategies', 'aggressive neighbors', 'negotiating position'. Good keyword coverage; only a few common synonyms (e.g., 'giving in', 'appeasing') are missing, so not a 5, but it exceeds the 'some relevant keywords' bar of 3.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche — appeasement/territorial-concession analysis via a named classical framework — with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills. Matches the 5 anchor; no neighboring anchor fits better.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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_122/SKILL.md
Commit: 6b836e3

Reviewed: 16 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.