A well-engineered conversational-skill body: the multi-mode workflow is unambiguous with real feedback loops, and the guidance is concrete enough to execute verbatim. The only slack is mild duplication between inline templates and the reference files.

Suggestions

Replace the fully inlined 诊断收尾 snapshot template with the key fields only and point to references/progress-snapshot-template.md, mirroring how Step 4 already defers to it.

Trim the inline four-segment template in Step 3 to the segment names plus one-line guidance, leaving the detailed rubric in references/feedback-rubric.md.

Fold the 场景库 list into references/thinking-dimensions.md's question templates, keeping only 2-3 example scenes inline.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense operational guidance with no filler explaining concepts Claude already knows, but there is duplication: the four-part feedback structure is spelled out inline ('按 references/feedback-rubric.md 的规范写反馈。结构固定为四段' followed by the full template) and the v1 进度快照 template inlines ~20 lines that also exist in references/progress-snapshot-template.md. These are minor trim opportunities, matching the 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' anchor rather than the lean 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: literal diagnostic questions to ask ('你的工作/学习背景是什么？…'), a fixed feedback template with placeholders, quantified difficulty promotion/demotion rules ('最近 3 题中连续两个维度都给出有结构、有反例的回答'), and an anti-pattern table pairing each failure with a concrete replacement. This is copy-paste-ready, covering the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Three modes with explicit entry conditions ('没有进度摘要粘贴进来 → 首次诊断模式' etc.), a strict four-step loop with checkpoints (wait for answer, confirm understanding before scoring, one question at a time), and genuine feedback loops in the difficulty rules (降档 when the user struggles two rounds in a row). No destructive/batch operations, so no validation cap applies.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	All three referenced files (thinking-dimensions.md, feedback-rubric.md, progress-snapshot-template.md) exist, are one level deep, and are signaled at point of use plus a 配套资源 index, with an explicit load-on-demand instruction ('按需加载，不要一次性全塞进上下文'). The inline v1 snapshot template and inline four-segment feedback template duplicate content that belongs in those reference files, which keeps it at the 'good structure; minor organization gaps' anchor rather than 5.	4 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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 strong description: it states concrete capabilities and an explicit, naturally-phrased 'use when' trigger clause with synonyms, and defines a distinct niche. Only minor trigger-term variants (e.g., 批判性思维/思辨) are absent.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description enumerates multiple concrete actions: '持续提问训练', '四段式反馈（亮点/缺口/替代视角/追问）', '按 10 个思维维度轮换出题', '自动校准难度、追踪进度' — comprehensive coverage of what the skill does with no vague padding.	5 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' (Socratic questioning coach with four-part feedback, 10 dimensions, difficulty calibration, progress tracking) and 'when' ('当用户希望被提问训练、被点评思考过程、训练独立判断、想要思维陪练或思维教练、想练习反思/决策/论证质量时使用本技能') are explicit, with concrete trigger phrases — a direct match for the 5 anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The 'Use when' clause covers natural phrases users would say — '被提问训练', '被点评思考过程', '训练独立判断', '想要思维陪练或思维教练', '想练习反思/决策/论证质量' — including synonyms (陪练/教练). A few common variants like '批判性思维' or '思辨训练' are missing, so it falls just short of the comprehensive anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves out a clear niche — questioning-based thinking sparring with structured feedback and progress tracking — and its triggers are specific to wanting to be coached via questions, not general Q&A or tutoring, so conflict risk with adjacent skills is minimal.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 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: digoal/blog
Path: skills/logic-thinker-coach/SKILL.md
Commit: 69fb793

Reviewed: 10 days 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.