CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

reasoning

To apply structured 8D meta-cognitive reasoning thinking to complex problems, then answer clearly with caveats. Must use when asked to think or reason.

Quality

70%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./instructions/r2/core/skills/reasoning/SKILL.md
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.

The body delivers a well-sequenced, self-validating 8-step reasoning workflow with explicit confidence gates and a feedback loop — workflow clarity is excellent. It is let down by redundancy (checklist/best-practices/pitfalls duplicate the core flow) and the absence of a worked example showing the expected output format.

Suggestions

Merge the validation_checklist, best_practices, and pitfalls sections into core_concepts/boundaries — most items are restatements of the 8-step flow and boundaries, cutting ~30 lines with no information loss.

Add a brief worked example (input problem → terse step outputs → final answer with confidence and caveats) so the expected output shape is unambiguous.

Vary or remove the repeated 'Output terse, only then proceed next' per-step exit phrase; state the terse-output rule once as a global constraint.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is prescriptive rather than explanatory (no concepts Claude already knows are re-taught), but it is padded: 'Output terse, only then proceed next' is repeated at every step, and the validation_checklist, best_practices, and pitfalls sections substantially duplicate core_concepts and boundaries. Matches anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but could be tightened'); not 4 due to the duplicated sections and repeated exit phrases.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete: a numbered 8-step flow, explicit confidence thresholds (0.0-1.0, the 0.8 DEBRIEF gate), named techniques, and a 7-step DECIDE algorithm. Matches anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'); not 5 because no worked example or output template shows the expected format.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear 1-8 sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint (DEBRIEF: confidence < 0.8 loops back through steps 1-7), a feedback loop, a commit/prune decision protocol, and a dedicated validation_checklist section. Matches anchor 5 ('clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops; checklists').

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single-file skill uses consistent, well-labeled sections (role, when_to_use_skill, core_concepts, validation_checklist, best_practices, pitfalls) that are easy to navigate. Matches anchor 4 ('good structure; minor organization gaps'); not 5 because ~135 lines of dense flow sit inline and pieces (e.g. the DECIDE/ToT algorithm) could live in a reference file.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

55%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 states a clear what (8D meta-cognitive reasoning with confidence and caveats) and an explicit when clause, but the actions are abstract rather than concrete. Its main weakness is the maximally broad trigger ('asked to think or reason'), which conflicts with nearly any analytical skill and misses natural synonyms.

Suggestions

Narrow the trigger clause to specific contexts, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to reason through a complex decision, weigh trade-offs, or wants an answer with explicit confidence and caveats' — replace the generic 'asked to think or reason'.

Add concrete capability phrases to the what: e.g. 'decomposes the problem, selects a fitting framework, branches and scores candidate answers via Tree-of-Thoughts, and outputs answer, confidence (0.0-1.0), and caveats'.

Include natural trigger synonyms such as 'analyze', 'decide', 'trade-offs', and 'work through' so the skill matches how users actually phrase reasoning requests.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"apply structured 8D meta-cognitive reasoning thinking to complex problems, then answer clearly with caveats" names the domain and 1-2 actions, but the actions are abstract ('apply reasoning') rather than concrete operations. Not 4: no list of several specific actions; not 2: domain is named and actions go beyond generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear what ('apply structured 8D meta-cognitive reasoning... answer clearly with caveats') and an explicit when ('Must use when asked to think or reason'), though the when is very broad and could be more specific. Matches anchor 4; not 5 because the when lacks concrete trigger phrases, not 3 because when is explicit rather than implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Must use when asked to think or reason" includes the natural terms 'think' and 'reason', but misses common variations and synonyms users would say ('analyze', 'decide', 'work through', 'trade-offs'). Matches anchor 3; not 4 because keyword coverage is thin.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger 'asked to think or reason' applies to virtually any non-trivial request, creating very high overlap risk with many skills; only the niche '8D' naming adds slight distinctiveness. Matches anchor 2; not 1 because the what is somewhat distinguishable, not 3 because the trigger would misfire broadly.

2 / 5

Total

12

/

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

griddynamics/rosetta

Path

instructions/r2/core/skills/reasoning/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.