CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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。

69

Quality

83%

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

67%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 a well-sequenced coaching playbook with concrete templates and a clear multi-step workflow including feedback checkpoints. Its main weakness is moderate verbosity in the rationale/philosophy sections, and it could offload the question-bank into a reference file to tighten the overview.

Suggestions

Trim the 核心理念 section — the '多问少下结论' principle is restated; consolidate to one concise paragraph and remove reassurance filler like '用户是来提升能力的,不是来被打击的'.

Move the eight-item question-type bank (隐藏假设识别, 因果 vs 相关, …) into a references/question-bank.md file and keep only a one-line pointer in SKILL.md to reduce body length.

Add an explicit verification step after 记录训练日志 (e.g. confirm the 薄弱点汇总 entry was appended) to close the loop on the one batch-like operation in the workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation — the 核心理念 section re-explains the '多问少下结论' idea twice, and a few reassurance sentences ('用户是来提升能力的,不是来被打击的') could be trimmed without losing actionable guidance.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete追问句式 templates users can reuse, a ready-to-use markdown log format, and a categorized question-type list with worked examples — mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-phase round flow (开场 → 出题 → 追问 → 点评 → 记录 → 顺势推进) is clearly sequenced with explicit decision checkpoints (追问 1-2 轮观察, 追问 2-3 轮后停止); minor gap is that the log-write step lacks an explicit verify-the-file-was-appended confirmation.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Single-file skill with no bundle files, but the body is well-organized into clear named sections (核心理念, numbered flow subsections, 注意事项); structure is good with only minor organization gaps given the ~100-line length could benefit from splitting the question-bank into a reference file.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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 exemplary: it states concrete capabilities, provides exhaustive natural-language triggers in both Chinese and English, and explicitly addresses both what and when with multi-session context. It is clearly distinguishable from general Q&A skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 出思考题, 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, 保存训练记录和薄弱点到 markdown — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it via a clearly labeled 触发条件 clause with concrete trigger phrases, and even clarifies the ongoing multi-session relationship.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive coverage of natural trigger phrases including Chinese variants (训练我的逻辑思维, 陪我练逻辑, 批判性思维训练, 苏格拉底式提问, 考考我的逻辑), English equivalents (logic training), and edge-case phrasings a user would naturally say.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (Socratic logic coaching across multi-session training) with distinct triggers and an explicit instruction to return to this skill rather than treat prompts as normal Q&A, minimizing conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
digoal/blog
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.