CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ai-style

中文文案去「AI 味」检查清单,由用户纠正反馈持续提炼而来

Quality

69%

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 ./chapter9/ai-style-skill/skill/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 content is a well-structured, concrete checklist with before/after examples per rule and no concept padding. It is strong on actionability and organization; the main gains are a tighter detection-method line and an explicit per-rule application procedure.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the repeated "检测方法:LLM judge 语义判定(上线前须通过独立人工金标集校准)" line by stating it once in "使用方式" and referencing it per rule.

Add an explicit application workflow, e.g. "For each rule: scan text → if matched, rewrite using the rule's 改写建议 → re-check until clean".

Consider moving the per-rule 改写建议 or a fuller example set into a one-level reference file if the SKILL.md grows further.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and information-dense with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; the only minor trim candidate is the identical "检测方法:LLM judge 语义判定..." line repeated across all 11 rules.

4 / 5

Actionability

Every rule pairs a concrete 坏例 with a concrete 好例 and a 改写建议, giving mostly executable guidance; it stops just short of fully copy-paste-ready patterns because it is judgment guidance rather than fixed commands.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

"使用方式" directs iterating rule-by-rule ("逐条对照...自查"), an unambiguous single action with no destructive/batch ops to validate, but lacks an explicit per-rule check→rewrite checkpoint sequence.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a self-contained, well-organized single file (no references/scripts/assets exist) with consistent sections per rule; it exceeds the simple-skill line count, so a one-level reference split could help but is not strictly needed.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 its niche and includes one natural trigger phrase, but it lacks an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and only names one concrete action. Adding a trigger clause and a couple more concrete actions would lift it significantly.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, e.g. "Use when writing or rewriting Chinese reader-facing copy (release notes, 公众号 posts, emails, README) or when feedback says the text has too much AI flavor."

List 2-3 concrete actions instead of only "检查清单", e.g. "checks copy against 11 anti-AI-flavor rules, flags violations, and suggests rewrites".

Add common trigger synonyms/variations (e.g. "不像人写的", "机翻感", "AI 腔") to broaden natural keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("中文文案去「AI 味」") and a single action ("检查清单"), but lists only one concrete action rather than multiple, matching the anchor for naming the domain with minimal/generic actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear "what" (a de-AI-flavor checklist) but no "Use when..." trigger clause; per the rubric a missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes a natural phrase users would actually say ("去「AI 味」"/"AI 味"), but offers limited keyword coverage with no synonyms or common variations, matching the anchor for some relevant keywords missing common variations.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"去 AI 味检查清单" carves a clear niche distinct from general writing skills, with only minor overlap risk with closely related editing skills.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

bojieli/ai-agent-book

Path

chapter9/ai-style-skill/skill/SKILL.md

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.