CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

multi-expert-analyzer

对任何领域的棘手问题进行深度思考分析,先识别问题所属领域并按需调度多位领域专家并行作答, 之后由事实核查员和红队做克制的事实审计与对抗性反驳,最后整合为面向小白的第一人称终稿。 适用:用户抛出一个跨领域/有深度的真实问题,希望听到多位专家的视角、看到观点的边界与证伪条件, 并得到一气呵成、通俗有据的最终文章。不适用:简单事实查询、纯情绪吐槽、不要求证据的随口一问。

64

Quality

81%

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 workflow is unambiguous, sequenced, and ends in an explicit self-check loop, and file conventions are concrete enough to execute directly. Weaknesses are repetition of the same governing principles (costing tokens), the absence of the referenced agents/ template files from the bundle, and inlined style guidance that belongs in a reference.

Suggestions

State the 克制 (restraint) principle once — e.g., in Step 3.3 — and reference it from Step 4.2 and 关键原则 instead of restating it three times.

Include a minimal example of the Agent-tool invocation (or an excerpt of an expert prompt) so Step 2 is executable even before the agents/ templates are read.

Move the detailed Step 4.2 writing-style rules into a style reference file and keep only a short checklist in SKILL.md, and ship the referenced agents/expert.md, fact-checker.md, and red-team.md with the bundle.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The core "克制" principle is stated three separate times (Step 3.3, Step 4.2's 反思补充, and 关键原则 #4), and parallel-execution and rewrite-not-stitch rules are likewise repeated, with the closing 关键原则 section largely re-summarizing the body. Content is purposeful rather than padded, but the repetition means it 'could be tightened' — not the lean anchor 5, yet noticeably tighter than anchor 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable specifics abound: slug derivation with worked examples ("AI 会不会让程序员失业" → ai-programmer-unemployment), exact file-name formats (markdown/<slug>-expert-<n>.md), and an explicit tool sequence (Read agents/expert.md, then feed to the Agent tool). It falls short of fully copy-paste-ready because no example Agent invocation or expert-prompt excerpt is shown and the referenced agents/*.md templates are not in the bundle to verify.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–5 are clearly sequenced with a flow diagram, and Step 5 is an explicit 8-item self-check checklist with a retry feedback loop ("任何一条不通过,微调后再过一遍。直到全部通过"), reinforced by 关键原则 #3's validate-fix-revalidate rule — matching the anchor for clear sequence, explicit validation, and error-recovery loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The three agents/*.md prompt templates are well signaled, listed up front, and one level deep — good structure. However, none of these files exist in the provided bundle to verify, and roughly 60 lines of detailed writing-style rules (Step 4.2) are inlined where a reference file would fit, leaving minor organization gaps that keep it below the clean-split anchor.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

81%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 fully specifies the pipeline, uses third person, and includes explicit 适用/不适用 trigger guidance that most descriptions lack. Its main weakness is trigger vocabulary — keywords skew toward internal mechanism jargon rather than the natural phrases a user would utter when needing this skill.

Suggestions

Add user-voice trigger synonyms such as "深入分析", "多角度分析", "多个视角帮我看看" alongside the mechanism terms (红队, 事实核查员) so the description matches what users actually type.

Trim internal-pipeline vocabulary ("第一人称终稿", "调度") from the description; they describe implementation, not the user-facing outcome.

Narrow the opening scope from "任何领域的棘手问题" to a more distinctive phrase to reduce overlap with generic research/analysis skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates four concrete pipeline actions in third person — "识别问题所属领域并按需调度多位领域专家并行作答", "事实核查员和红队做克制的事实审计与对抗性反驳", "整合为面向小白的第一人称终稿" — which comprehensively covers the skill's behavior with no obvious gaps, matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor below it.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (the four-stage pipeline) and when, with a dedicated "适用:" trigger clause and a "不适用:" exclusion list ("简单事实查询、纯情绪吐槽、不要求证据的随口一问") — clearer than the anchor-4 case where 'when' is present but could be more specific.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "棘手问题" and "跨领域/有深度的真实问题" are present, but most keywords are internal-mechanism jargon a user would not actually say ("红队", "事实核查员", "第一人称终稿", "调度...并行作答"), and common user phrasings like "深入分析", "多角度分析", or "帮我分析这个问题" are missing. This fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' better than 'good coverage, a few missing'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-expert adversarial-review pipeline with an explicit exclusion list carves out a distinct niche, but the opening scope "任何领域的棘手问题" is broad enough to overlap with general deep-research or analysis skills, so it is 'mostly distinct with minor overlap risk' rather than minimal-conflict.

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: 2 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

digoal/blog

Path

skills/skills_archive/multi-expert-analyzer_20260708/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.