CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

multi-expert-analyzer

多领域专家联合分析 skill,深度思考分析解答任何领域的棘手问题。流程:主控 agent 识别问题所属领域,动态调度 1~N 个领域专家并行搜证、分析、产稿,再交由事实核查员与红队进行克制温和的二次审查,最终综合成第一人称、面向小白、文笔一气呵成的 markdown 文章。当用户提出跨界、复杂、有争议的硬问题,希望从多视角深度拆解;或明确要求"深度分析 / 多角度分析 / 专家会诊 / 多领域联合分析"时触发。

69

Quality

85%

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

73%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 thorough, well-sequenced multi-agent workflow with strong validation checkpoints and good external reference structure. The main drawbacks are length/redundancy in the inline guidance and the core dispatch being shown only as pseudocode rather than executable code.

Suggestions

Trim redundancy: remove or compress the dispatch pseudocode block (it restages the already-described 5-stage workflow) and consolidate the 13-item self-check checklist so it references rules rather than restating them.

Move the Anti-AI-tic风格指南 (blacklist + replacement table) into its own reference file (e.g. references/anti-ai-style.md) and link to it from the body, keeping SKILL.md a leaner overview.

Replace the abstract pseudocode dispatch with a concrete, copy-paste-ready Agent-call example using real subagent_type values and an inline prompt skeleton (or explicitly point to expert-prompt-template.md for the per-expert prompt body).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely skill-specific guidance rather than generic concept explanation, but ~310 lines contain real redundancy — the dispatch pseudocode restates the workflow, the 13-item self-check checklist repeats earlier rules, and stage 5b's反例/正例 lists are heavy — so it could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Gives concrete file-naming conventions (expert-{N}-{领域}.md), specific embedding句式, a term blacklist, and checklists, but the core orchestration is shown only as pseudocode with undefined functions like expert_template(...), leaving a minor gap.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced stages with explicit validation checkpoints (专家自我验证一轮, fact-checker, red-team, 嵌入后自检, 自我验证清单) and feedback loops (self-verify and revise until passing), plus checklists for the complex process — matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is an overview with five well-signaled one-level-deep references (all verified present: expert-roster, expert-prompt-template, fact-checker-prompt, red-team-prompt, diagram-guide), but sizable inline content like the ~40-line Anti-AI-tic style guide could arguably live in its own reference file.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

A strong description that crisply captures a multi-stage multi-expert workflow with explicit, natural-language trigger phrases and concrete actions. Its only weakness is that some trigger terms ('深度分析', '多角度分析') are broad enough to risk overlap with adjacent analysis skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions covering the full pipeline — '识别问题所属领域', '动态调度 1~N 个领域专家并行搜证、分析、产稿', '事实核查员与红队...二次审查', '综合成第一人称...markdown 文章' — matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly states both what (multi-expert joint analysis pipeline) and when ('当用户提出跨界、复杂、有争议的硬问题...或明确要求...时触发') with concrete trigger phrases, hitting the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Provides natural user phrases with synonyms — '深度分析 / 多角度分析 / 专家会诊 / 多领域联合分析' — plus scenario descriptors users would actually say, matching comprehensive synonym coverage.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-expert-consultation + verification + synthesis niche is mostly distinct, but broad triggers like '深度分析 / 多角度分析' carry minor overlap risk with other analysis skills, so it sits just below the minimal-conflict anchor.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

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.