CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

multi-expert-analyzer

针对通用问题进行多领域专家联合分析, 综合稿产生前必经 fact-checker 与 red-team 两道独立校验。适用场景: 用户提出跨领域或不确定领域的复杂问题, 需要从多个专家角度分别搜证并相互校验后综合成文, 例如该不该买房、该不该跳槽、是否进入某个赛道等。触发关键词: 多角度分析、专家分析、综合分析、多视角、跨领域分析、从不同角度看、深度分析。问题只属于单一明确领域时, 优先使用该领域的专门 skill, 例如纯财务用 finance-core-analysis、纯技术用 software-architect。输出 (全部 markdown 保存到当前项目 markdown/ 目录): (1) 每位专家的中间分析稿; (2) 事实核查报告 (跨专家矛盾 / 未经证实的主张 / 重叠区); (3) 红队反驳报告 (逐条反驳承重墙级主张, 给出 SURVIVES / WEAKENS / REFUTED 裁定); (4) 第一人称、通俗易懂的最终综合长文, 同时报告哪些主张通过验证、多少被弱化、多少被剔除。

67

Quality

84%

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

75%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.

An exceptionally actionable, well-gated workflow with real one-level-deep bundle files and thorough validation loops. The main costs are systematic rule repetition that inflates token usage and a stale '5 步' reference that contradicts the actual seven-step sequence.

Suggestions

Fix the stale step count: change '按以下 5 步严格执行' to 7 (or drop the count) so the sequence claim matches the actual steps.

State the file-naming convention once (in 步骤 3.8) and reference assets/expert-analysis-template.md from 步骤 7 instead of repeating it, eliminating the cross-file duplication and drift risk.

Collapse the 失败模式 section to only failure modes not already stated as rules in 步骤 5/6/7 (e.g. keep 虚假综合 and 概念膨胀, drop restatements of the hard gates), and trim the '为什么…' rationale paragraphs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is rule-dense with no filler explaining known concepts, but rules are systematically restated: file-naming conventions appear in full in both 步骤 3.8 and 步骤 7's 输出位置, and SURVIVES/WEAKENS/REFUTED handling rules appear in 步骤 6, the output self-check, and again in 失败模式. Fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'; not 2 since nothing is concept-padding, not 4 since the duplication is systematic rather than minor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready report templates for both gates, exact bilingual file-naming patterns with worked examples, named tools (mcp__MiniMax__web_search / WebFetch), a named subagent type, and a 12-item pre-output checklist. For an instruction-only skill this is fully executable guidance covering common cases, matching the level-5 anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Seven numbered, hard-gated steps with feedback loops throughout (3.7 validate-fix-revalidate with three-round escalation, two-round fact-check loop, red-team verdict gates, final self-check). However the intro instructs '按以下 5 步严格执行, 不要跳步' while seven steps follow — a stale step count that muddles the sequence, keeping it at 'minor validation gaps' rather than level 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All four references and two assets exist as real substantive files, are cited at point of use and indexed with descriptions in 资源, and are one level deep. But file-naming rules are duplicated between SKILL.md 步骤 3.8 and assets/expert-analysis-template.md (a drift hazard) and the body carries checklist/template material that could live in the bundle, fitting 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than level 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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: concrete multi-deliverable capability statement, explicit use-when guidance with trigger keywords, and an explicit carve-out that routes single-domain questions to specialized skills. Main weaknesses are a couple of overly generic trigger terms and missing common synonyms like '全面分析'.

Suggestions

Replace or qualify the generic trigger terms '深度分析' and '综合分析' with more distinctive phrasing (e.g. '多专家深度分析') to reduce overlap with single-domain analysis skills.

Add common natural variants such as '全面分析' and '客观分析' to the trigger keyword list to improve natural-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Enumerates four concrete deliverables (per-expert drafts, fact-check report with named sections, red-team report with SURVIVES/WEAKENS/REFUTED verdicts, first-person synthesis article) plus two hard verification gates. This matches the 'multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' anchor, not level 4 which implies coverage gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (multi-expert joint analysis with enumerated outputs and verification gates) and when ('适用场景' clause with concrete examples plus a dedicated trigger-keyword clause). Matches the level-5 anchor with concrete trigger phrases; not 4 since 'when' is fully explicit rather than weakly implied.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Seven natural trigger phrases with synonym coverage (多角度/多视角, 综合/跨领域), but '深度分析' and '综合分析' are generic terms users say for many analysis needs and common variants like '全面分析' are missing. Fits 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive level-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicitly deflects single-domain questions to sibling skills ('纯财务用 finance-core-analysis、纯技术用 software-architect'), a strong distinctiveness signal, and triggers are niche-specific. However the generic terms '深度分析/综合分析' create minor overlap risk with any deep-analysis skill, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than minimal conflict.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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_20260706/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.