CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

logic-thinker-coach

通过持续的对话式提问,训练用户的逻辑思维与独立思考能力:给用户出思考题、用苏格拉底式追问引导用户自己发现漏洞、对用户的每次回复做点评并给出具体改进意见,同时把训练记录和薄弱点保存到 markdown,用于后续对话中做针对性、渐进式的训练。触发条件:用户提到"训练我的逻辑思维"、"锻炼独立思考"、"陪我练逻辑"、"logic training"、"批判性思维训练"、"苏格拉底式提问"、"帮我练习思辨"、"考考我的逻辑"、"跟我辩论/追问练习",或者用户明确要求"你来提问,我来回答,你来点评"这种角色反转式训练。即使用户只说"我想提升一下逻辑思维能力,帮帮我"或"以后没事就考考我",也应使用本 skill,并且要记住:这是一个跨越多轮对话、甚至跨越多次会话的持续训练关系,每次用户提到练习/考我/继续训练,都应该回到本 skill 而不是当作普通问答。

75

Quality

94%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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 well-crafted instruction-only skill body: the coaching workflow is clearly sequenced with decision branches, and the guidance is unusually concrete (log template, phrasing examples, weakness-label taxonomy). The main improvement opportunities are trimming minor stylistic padding and moving the question-type catalog and log templates to a references file.

Suggestions

Trim stylistic padding passages (e.g. the closing sentences of §6 and repeated tone guidance in §4 and 注意事项) to reduce token cost without losing guidance.

Consider moving the eight-question-type catalog and the two markdown log-format templates to a references/ file (e.g. references/question-types.md and references/log-format.md), keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview with well-signaled pointers.

Consolidate the tone/coaching-philosophy guidance stated in both the 点评 section and 注意事项 into one place to remove redundancy.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient, domain-specific coaching guidance Claude would not self-derive, but a few passages are stylistic padding (e.g. "把主动权和节奏感留给对话本身,而不是把训练做成打卡式的问答机器") and the tone guidance is repeated across the 点评 section and 注意事项. This fits anchor 4 (minor instances that could be trimmed) rather than anchor 3, since no section explains things Claude already knows.

4 / 5

Actionability

Highly actionable for an instruction-only skill: an exact log path (`markdown/logic-training-log.md`), a copy-paste-ready log template with field-by-field definitions, a defined weakness-label vocabulary ("忽略反例", "因果相关混淆") for aggregation, six concrete follow-up phrasings, and eight concrete question archetypes with examples. Specific examples cover the common cases, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The round flow (开场判断新/老用户 → 出题 → 追问 → 点评 → 记录 → 顺势推进) is clearly sequenced with explicit decision branches at each step: new vs. returning user, self-correction vs. stuck after 2-3 rounds, frustration fallback, and a recurring-weakness threshold (4-5 occurrences). This matches anchor 5's explicit checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops, adapted to a conversational rather than destructive operation.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized single-file skill with clear sections and no external references, but at ~105 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill case; the eight-question-type catalog and the two log-format templates are plausible candidates for a references/ file. Structure is good with minor organization gaps (anchor 4), not the perfectly split overview of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

96%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.

An excellent description: it explicitly covers what the skill does (question-posing, Socratic probing, critique, markdown logging for progressive training) and when to use it, with a rich set of natural trigger phrases in both Chinese and English. The only deductions are a slightly over-broad set of soft triggers and some verbosity that could be trimmed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions covering the full coaching loop: "给用户出思考题", "用苏格拉底式追问引导用户自己发现漏洞", "对用户的每次回复做点评并给出具体改进意见", and "把训练记录和薄弱点保存到 markdown" for targeted progressive training. Coverage is comprehensive, matching the anchor-5 example rather than the 'minor gaps' of anchor 4.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (train logical thinking via posing questions, Socratic probing, critique with improvement suggestions, and markdown record-keeping) and 'when' (an explicit "触发条件:" clause listing concrete trigger phrases and fallback examples) are clearly and explicitly stated, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Extensive natural trigger phrases users would actually say: "训练我的逻辑思维", "陪我练逻辑", "logic training", "考考我的逻辑", "苏格拉底式提问", plus softer variants like "以后没事就考考我". This is comprehensive coverage including synonyms and both Chinese and English phrasings, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (multi-session logic training coach with persistent logs) is distinct, but very broad soft triggers like "考考我" or "帮帮我" could overlap with general tutoring, debate, or quiz skills. It is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk (anchor 4) rather than fully minimal conflict risk, and the description's length includes some redundancy.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

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

digoal/blog

Path

skills/skills_for_claude_web/logic-thinker-coach/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.