thinking-deeply
Engages structured analysis to explore multiple perspectives and context dependencies before responding. Use when users ask confirmation-seeking questions, make leading statements, request binary choices, or when feeling inclined to quickly agree or disagree without thorough consideration.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:brunoasm/my_claude_skills --skill thinking-deeplyOverall
score
85%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a well-structured description with excellent completeness and trigger term quality. It clearly defines when to use the skill with specific, natural language triggers. The main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more concrete about the specific analytical steps or outputs involved.
Suggestions
Add 1-2 concrete actions describing what the structured analysis produces (e.g., 'generates pros/cons analysis', 'identifies assumptions', 'surfaces counterarguments')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain ('structured analysis', 'multiple perspectives', 'context dependencies') and describes the general action, but lacks concrete specific actions like what the structured analysis entails or what outputs it produces. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Engages structured analysis to explore multiple perspectives and context dependencies') and when ('Use when users ask confirmation-seeking questions, make leading statements, request binary choices...') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural trigger terms users would say: 'confirmation-seeking questions', 'leading statements', 'binary choices'. Also captures internal triggers ('feeling inclined to quickly agree or disagree') which helps Claude self-select appropriately. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Has a clear niche focused on avoiding premature agreement/disagreement and handling leading questions. The specific triggers (confirmation-seeking, leading statements, binary choices) are distinct and unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, highly actionable skill that provides clear guidance for thoughtful response generation. Its main strength is the concrete 5-step protocol with detailed examples showing before/after comparisons. The primary weakness is verbosity - the skill could achieve the same clarity with fewer tokens by trimming redundant sections and potentially moving examples to a separate file.
Suggestions
Move the three detailed examples to a separate EXAMPLES.md file and reference them from the main skill to reduce token usage
Consolidate 'Anti-patterns to avoid' and 'Success Criteria' sections - they convey similar information and could be merged or trimmed
Tighten the 'When This Skill Activates' section - items 1, 4, and 5 overlap significantly and could be combined
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is moderately verbose with some redundancy. The examples are helpful but lengthy, and some sections like 'Anti-patterns to avoid' and 'Success Criteria' overlap conceptually. The core protocol could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides highly concrete, step-by-step guidance with specific response templates, clear trigger conditions, and three detailed before/after examples showing exactly how to apply the skill. The structured response format is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step protocol (Pause, Reframe, Map, Respond, Avoid) is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints. The structured response format provides a clear template with labeled sections (a-d). Success criteria serve as validation checkpoints. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear headers and sections, but it's a monolithic document that could benefit from splitting examples into a separate file. At ~200 lines, the inline examples add significant length that could be referenced externally. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
87%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 14 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
Total | 14 / 16 Passed | |
- 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.