cs-foundations

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

Quality

41%

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

28%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.

The body is an organized topical outline rather than actionable skill guidance: it explains concepts Claude already knows and never connects to the bundled proof-technique reference, template, or validator scripts. Workflow and progressive disclosure are weakened because the bundle is present but unreferenced.

Suggestions

Trim "Why It Matters", "Interview Prep", and the basic "Key Concepts" definitions, and move proof-technique detail into references/PROOF-TECHNIQUES.md with a "See [PROOF-TECHNIQUES.md](references/PROOF-TECHNIQUES.md)" pointer.

Add a concrete worked workflow: state theorem -> pick technique from assets/proof-template.md -> draft proof -> run `python scripts/verify-proof.py <file>` -> fix and re-verify.

Replace the bare Practice Problems list with one fully worked example (base case + inductive step) that Claude can follow as a pattern.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Several sections explain concepts Claude already knows (defining axioms/theorems/lemmas in "Key Concepts", enumerating basic set operations) and "Why It Matters"/"Interview Prep" read as filler, matching the anchor for noticeably verbose with several unnecessary padded sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	The body lists practice problems and a troubleshooting table but provides no executable code or commands and never instructs use of the bundled proof validators, matching the anchor for minimal concrete guidance missing the specific steps to execute.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough week-by-week sequence exists, but there is no end-to-end proof workflow and the bundled verification scripts are never wired in, matching the anchor for a rough sequence with many gaps and absent validation.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A real one-level-deep bundle exists (references/, scripts/, assets/) with section structure, but the body never references any of those files and inlines content that belongs in them, matching the anchor for structure with un-signaled references and inline content.	3 / 5
	Total	9 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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.

The description is clear and on-domain but generic: it states a goal rather than concrete capabilities and omits any "Use when..." trigger guidance. It is distinct enough from unrelated skills but lacks the trigger terms users would naturally say.

Suggestions

Rewrite around concrete actions, e.g., "Construct formal proofs by induction, contradiction, and contrapositive; verify proof structure with the bundled validator."

Add an explicit trigger clause: "Use when the user asks to prove a statement, work a discrete-math problem, or verify a proof's structure."

Include natural trigger terms users actually say ("prove by induction", "set theory", "modular arithmetic", "is this proof valid").

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names several sub-domains ("discrete mathematics, logic, formal proofs, and computational thinking") but relies on abstract goal verbs ("Master", "Build") rather than concrete skill actions, matching the anchor for naming the domain with limited concrete actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	It has a clear "what" (master these math foundations) but no "when"/"Use when..." trigger clause, hitting the rubric cap of 3 for missing explicit trigger guidance.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes relevant academic phrases ("discrete mathematics", "logic", "formal proofs") but misses the colloquial variations users would actually say (e.g., "prove by induction", "set theory problem"), matching the anchor for some relevant keywords with missing synonyms.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The discrete-math/formal-proofs niche is mostly distinct, though "computational thinking" and "foundation for all computer science" invite minor overlap with related CS skills, matching the anchor for mostly distinct with minor overlap risk.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 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: d5ae560

Reviewed: 1 day 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.