cs-foundations

Master discrete mathematics, logic, formal proofs, and computational thinking. Build the mathematical foundation for all computer science.

Quality

23%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./bundled/skills/cs-foundations/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The skill body reads as a study-guide syllabus rather than actionable skill instructions: it restates known concepts, omits executable guidance, and orphans its bundle files. Section structure exists but content is not appropriately offloaded to the references.

Suggestions

Replace the syllabus/glossary with a concise workflow that routes proof requests to references/PROOF-TECHNIQUES.md and assets/proof-template.md, and validates output with scripts/proof_validator.py.

Add explicit one-level-deep links to each bundle file ('See [PROOF-TECHNIQUES.md](references/PROOF-TECHNIQUES.md)') and remove the duplicated inline proof techniques.

Cut the 'Key Concepts', 'Why It Matters', and 'Interview Prep' sections, which restate knowledge Claude already has.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body pads the context window with concepts Claude already knows (the 'Key Concepts' glossary defining axioms/theorems, 'Why It Matters', and a syllabus of basic subtopics like Boolean algebra and Venn diagrams) rather than adding procedural skill knowledge.	1 / 3
Actionability	The body offers a curriculum and exercise statements ('Prove by induction that...') but no executable code, commands, or procedural guidance for acting on a request, and it never invokes the bundled proof_validator.py / verify-proof.py scripts.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 'Learning Path' is a study timetable rather than an operational workflow, and the natural validation checkpoints (the bundled verification scripts) are completely unreferenced in the body, leaving no validate-fix-retry loop.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is organized into clear sections, but none of the four bundle files (PROOF-TECHNIQUES.md, verify-proof.py, proof_validator.py, proof-template.md) are signaled or linked, and proof-technique content is duplicated inline rather than split out.	2 / 3
	Total	5 / 12 Passed

Description

40%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description names a clear domain but relies on vague aspirational verbs and second-person imperative voice, with no explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance. It is recognizable but not maximally specific or trigger-complete.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person with concrete actions, e.g. 'Explains and constructs formal proofs across discrete mathematics, logic, sets, and combinatorics.'

Add an explicit trigger clause: 'Use when the user asks about proofs, induction, set theory, discrete math, or formal logic.'

Replace 'Master'/'Build' with specific operations Claude performs (verify a proof, write an induction step, simplify a logical expression).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The verbs 'Master' and 'Build the mathematical foundation' are aspirational rather than concrete actions (unlike 'extract', 'fill', 'merge'), and the imperative second-person voice ('Master...') violates the third-person requirement, reducing the base score of 2 by one.	1 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill covers ('Master discrete mathematics, logic, formal proofs...') but never provides a 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger for when Claude should invoke it, capping completeness at 2 per the guidelines.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'discrete mathematics', 'logic', and 'formal proofs' are reasonably natural, but common variations ('discrete math', 'set theory', 'induction') are missing and 'computational thinking' is somewhat jargon-heavy.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The discrete-math/proofs niche is fairly distinct, but 'computational thinking' and 'mathematical foundation for all computer science' are broad enough to overlap with algorithms or general math skills.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills
Path: bundled/skills/cs-foundations/SKILL.md
Commit: f627ab5

Reviewed: about 8 hours 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.