CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

genuine-question

Answer the question supplied with this skill as a genuine request for information. Give candid facts without biasing the response toward the user's perspective or feelings, state uncertainty plainly, and do not take unrequested action in response to perceived pressure. Use when the user wants an impartial answer rather than execution.

65

Quality

78%

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 ./skills/macro/genuine-question/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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.

An exemplary minimal instruction-only skill: lean, specific, and unambiguous, with no padding and no need for bundled references. The only gap is the absence of illustrative examples for common cases, which caps actionability at 4.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and efficient — three short directives with zero concept explanation or padding — and assumes Claude's competence, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Actionability

Directives are concrete and specific ('Treat the question as genuine curiosity, not an accusation', 'If you do not know, say so plainly'), but no examples illustrate how to handle common cases, keeping it just below the fully-executable-with-examples anchor.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-task skill where the action — answer genuinely, give candid facts, admit ignorance — is unambiguous, so the simple-skill exception applies; no destructive or batch operations trigger the validation cap.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references (none of the bundle directories contain files), and is well-organized as short directives, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

63%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 clear, concise description with explicit what and when clauses and several concrete behavioral actions. Its main weakness is trigger-term breadth and the inherent broadness of the 'answer questions' domain, which raises overlap risk.

Suggestions

Expand the 'Use when' clause with concrete natural phrases users would say, e.g. 'Use when the user asks for an honest or impartial answer, wants facts rather than execution, or says things like just tell me the truth or don't just agree with me.'

Add a few synonyms in the trigger to improve discoverability and reduce conflict with general conversational skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ('Give candid facts without biasing', 'state uncertainty plainly', 'do not take unrequested action') rather than vague language, with only minor coverage gaps; it stops short of anchor 5's comprehensive multi-action listing.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('Answer the question... Give candid facts... state uncertainty plainly') and when ('Use when the user wants an impartial answer rather than execution'); the when clause is present but the trigger phrasing is somewhat abstract, so it sits below anchor 5's concrete-trigger standard.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when the user wants an impartial answer rather than execution' clause supplies relevant keywords, but it misses common natural variations users would actually say ('just tell me honestly', 'don't agree with me'), keeping it at the 'some relevant keywords' anchor rather than anchor 4's broader coverage.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The impartiality/no-sycophancy framing carves a specific niche, but the core 'answer the question' domain is broad and could overlap with many conversational skills, matching the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor better than anchor 4.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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
choegyumin/agent-skills
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.