rational-red-blue-debate

Answer general or cross-domain questions with a non-pleasing rational mode: adversarial red-team and blue-team expert analysis, mutually exclusive conclusions, up to five debate rounds, saved Markdown intermediate expert outputs, and a final first-person judge-written plain-language article. Use when the user asks for rational adversarial analysis, red/blue team debate, non-flattering judgment, evidence-backed multi-expert reasoning, or a final Markdown answer to a broad question.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

77%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-structured, actionable instruction-only skill with a clear workflow, explicit verification checklist, and error-recovery protocol. Its main weakness is redundancy — the timeline/multi-generation guidance is repeated across multiple sections and could be consolidated.

Suggestions

Consolidate the timeline-check guidance into one authoritative section and reference it from the others, instead of restating the multi-generation trap in Team Rules, Cross-Generation, Expert Files, Verification, and the Revision Protocol.

Trim the over-explanation of the chronological-ordering trap; state the rule once with the date-format example and link rather than re-deriving the rationale each time.

Consider moving the large expert-file content checklist (the 9-point list) into a reference file so SKILL.md stays a lean overview, improving token efficiency when the checklist is not needed.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean directive prose, but the timeline-check requirement and the multi-generation trap are restated across several sections (Team Rules, Cross-Generation, Expert Files, Verification, Revision Protocol), adding noticeable redundancy.	3 / 5
Actionability	It gives concrete file-name templates, a numbered expert-file structure, explicit banned-word lists, and date-format examples; minor gaps keep it just short of fully copy-paste ready.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 7-step workflow, structured debate rules, and an explicit 7-point verification checklist plus a revision-protocol feedback loop provide explicit checkpoints and error recovery.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist; the single well-sectioned file cleanly organizes the multi-part process with no nested references, which is appropriate for a self-contained skill.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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, specific description that clearly states both capabilities and explicit use-when triggers, with natural phrasing and a distinct niche. Only minor synonym coverage in trigger terms keeps it from a perfect mark there.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions — adversarial red-team and blue-team analysis, mutually exclusive conclusions, up to five debate rounds, saved Markdown expert outputs, and a first-person judge-written article — giving comprehensive coverage.	5 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with a clear "Use when the user asks for..." clause listing concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes natural trigger phrases users would say ("rational adversarial analysis", "red/blue team debate", "non-flattering judgment"), with only a few synonyms missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The non-pleasing red/blue adversarial-debate niche has distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills.	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/rational-red-blue-debate/SKILL.md
Commit: 3b9c83d

Reviewed: 3 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.