consult-zai

Dual-AI code analysis pairing z.ai GLM 5.2 with Claude code-searcher — a lightweight two-model second opinion. Use for a quick z.ai-backed check on a code question.

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/consult-zai/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%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 highly actionable and the workflow is exceptionally well-sequenced with thorough validation, scoring top marks on actionability and workflow clarity. It is dragged down by verbose inline rationale that inflates token cost and by a monolithic structure with no progressive file split despite its length.

Suggestions

Move the per-flag rationale ('Why this exact form' bullets) into a references/ doc and keep only the command block inline, to tighten conciseness toward 4-5.

Split the comparison-report template (§5) and the z.ai setup/dispatch recipe into separate references/ files referenced one level deep, so the SKILL.md body stays a lean overview.

Either bundle the referenced 'consult-panel §1d' guard text or inline it; a dangling cross-skill reference with no bundled file hurts navigation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient with concrete commands, but carries many inline rationale asides ('Why this exact form (each piece prevents a failure seen in practice)', '(verified 2026-07-18)', '(reported live 2026-08-01)') and justifications for every flag that could be trimmed or moved to a reference without losing the operational recipe.	3 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable: copy-paste bash setup, exact Write-tool instructions, a literal z.ai dispatch command with exact flags, and a jq parse recipe — concrete examples cover the common dispatch and parse cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear numbered sequence (build prompt → parallel dispatch → parse → cleanup → error handling → comparison) with explicit validation checkpoints (PROJECT_DIR check, jq dependency abort, zai-availability probe, parse guards, timeout/exit-code handling) and a labeled degraded-run feedback loop.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized with clear section headers, but at ~320 lines it is a monolithic single file with no bundle files to offload the long setup script or the comparison-report template, and it references an external 'consult-panel §1d' that is not present in the bundle.	3 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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 clear, in third person, and distinct, with an explicit 'Use for' trigger that answers both what and when. It is let down by listing only one bundled action and by trigger terms that omit the natural phrasings ('code review', 'analyze', 'debug') users would actually say.

Suggestions

Expand the action list to concrete component actions (e.g., 'run both analyses in parallel, cross-compare findings, and flag corroborated vs. disputed results') to lift specificity toward 5.

Add natural trigger synonyms users actually say — 'code review', 'analyze this code', 'debug an issue', 'architecture question' — alongside 'check on a code question'.

Broaden the 'Use for' clause with multiple concrete triggers (e.g., 'Use for code reviews, debugging dead-ends, or architecture questions needing a second opinion') to move completeness to 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Dual-AI code analysis pairing z.ai GLM 5.2 with Claude code-searcher') and a concrete composite action ('two-model second opinion' / 'check on a code question'), but lists essentially one bundled action rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, so it is not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does AND provides an explicit 'Use for a quick z.ai-backed check on a code question' trigger; the when clause is concrete but lists a single trigger phrase rather than several specific ones, so it is not fully comprehensive.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords ('code analysis', 'code question', 'second opinion', 'check') but misses the most natural phrasings users actually say for this need ('code review', 'analyze this code', 'debug') and lacks synonyms or file/extension triggers.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The z.ai GLM 5.2 + Claude code-searcher pairing is a clear, narrow niche with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk against generic code skills.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 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: centminmod/my-claude-code-setup
Path: .claude/skills/consult-zai/SKILL.md
Commit: 0d2d3eb

Reviewed: ~10 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.