CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

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。

65

Quality

82%

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 well-engineered orchestration skill: the multi-agent workflow is unambiguous, validated at every stage, and backed by real one-level-deep reference files with exact file-naming conventions. The main cost is redundancy — core rules recur across 核心原则, 阶段 5a/5b, and the checklists, and the Anti-AI-tic guide is inlined rather than disclosed — which pushes conciseness down.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the rules stated three times (核心原则, 阶段 5a/5b, 自我验证清单): state each rule once at point of use and let the final checklist reference them by short name instead of restating them.

Move the ~40-line Anti-AI-tic 黑名单/替换原则 appendix and the 阶段 5b sentence-pattern table into a references/style-guide.md, keeping only the top 3 blacklist items inline as a pointer.

Replace the labeled 伪代码 dispatch example with a concrete single Agent-call invocation template (one full prompt built from references/expert-prompt-template.md) so the scheduling section is executable rather than illustrative.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The 309-line body contains no filler explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it repeats the same rules three times: the 核心原则 state "验证器不污染综合"/"专家意见用'站在xxx角度'措辞", 阶段 5a/5b restate them with new examples, and the 自我验证清单 restates them again — plus the "我朋友会这么说话吗" test appears twice (阶段 5 附录 and the final checklist). Substantial tightening by deduplication is possible without losing clarity, matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: exact output paths and naming conventions ("markdown/{question-slug}/expert-{N}-{领域}.md", "{question-slug}/expert-{N}-{领域}-fig-{K}.svg"), ✅/❌ example sentences for phrasing, a four-row sentence-pattern table, and per-stage prompt files in references/. Falls short of 5 only because the dispatch example is explicitly labeled pseudocode ("调度示例(伪代码)") rather than an executable Agent-call template.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 5-stage workflow is explicitly sequenced (领域识别 → 并行产稿 → 事实核查 → 红队 → 综合 5a/5b) with validation checkpoints at each level: experts must self-review ("自我验证一轮...如不过关继续改"), verifiers have explicit 克制边界, 阶段 5b has an embedded-content self-check, and a final 12-item 自我验证清单 closes the loop with feedback for fixing failures.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Five reference files (expert-roster, expert-prompt-template, fact-checker-prompt, red-team-prompt, diagram-guide) all exist, are one level deep (no nested references), and are linked inline at point of use plus in a final 关键参考文件 section. Not a 5 because the body still inlines ~80 lines of Anti-AI-tic style-guide and sentence-pattern material that is self-contained guidance and could live in a reference file, keeping SKILL.md a leaner overview.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 a concrete end-to-end pipeline, uses third person, and closes with explicit, natural trigger conditions. The main weaknesses are a mild over-claim ("任何领域") and trigger coverage that stops slightly short of the synonym depth a 5 would show.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists a concrete multi-step pipeline: "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...二次审查,最终综合成...markdown 文章". It stops short of a 5 because "深度思考分析解答任何领域的棘手问题" is a broad over-claim and the concrete actions are pipeline-stage names rather than fully enumerated capabilities.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: 'what' is the full pipeline (dispatch experts → fact-check/red-team → synthesize layman-oriented markdown article), and 'when' is stated with concrete trigger phrases ("当用户提出跨界、复杂、有争议的硬问题...或明确要求...时触发"). Voice is third-person, matching the guideline.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes explicit natural trigger phrases a user would say: "深度分析 / 多角度分析 / 专家会诊 / 多领域联合分析", plus scenario cues like "跨界、复杂、有争议的硬问题,希望从多视角深度拆解". Not a 5 because common variations users plausibly say (e.g. "想听听不同看法", "深度思考") are only covered in the body, not the description.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"多领域专家联合分析" carves a clear niche (multi-expert consultation + synthesis) with distinct trigger phrases, so it is mostly distinguishable. Minor overlap risk remains with generic "深度分析" requests that could equally route to a single-domain deep-research or analysis skill.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

digoal/blog

Path

skills/skills_archive/multi-expert-analyzer_20260705/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.