CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

thinking-partner

Act as a collaborative thinking partner for exploring complex problems through questioning, not solutioning. Use when the user wants to think out loud, explore an idea, work through a problem, or asks for a thinking partner.

74

Quality

91%

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

100%

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

The body is a tight, well-structured instruction-only skill that gives concrete behaviors, a sequenced workflow, and reusable prompts without padding. It fully meets the rubric for a simple skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and well-organized with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Core Behaviors, Workflow, Key Prompts, Remember) earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete, specific guidance: a sequenced workflow with a defined question count (3-5), five named core behaviors, and example prompts the model can reuse.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The engagement workflow is a clearly numbered sequence with sub-steps; no destructive or batch operations are involved, so the validation-checkpoint cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

At under 50 lines with no need for external references, the well-organized sections satisfy progressive disclosure for a simple single-purpose skill.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

82%

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 with an explicit Use-when clause and natural trigger terms. It could list more distinct concrete actions and tighten its niche to reduce overlap with general brainstorming skills.

Suggestions

Enumerate a few distinct concrete behaviors (e.g., ask clarifying questions, surface assumptions, track emerging connections) in the description to lift specificity from 2 to 3.

Narrow the trigger scope or add a distinguishing qualifier so it is less likely to fire for generic planning or brainstorming requests.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain and core action ("exploring complex problems through questioning, not solutioning") but lists only one action family rather than multiple distinct concrete actions as required for a 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (collaborative thinking partner exploring problems through questioning) and when ("Use when the user wants to...") with an explicit trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"think out loud, explore an idea, work through a problem, or asks for a thinking partner" gives good coverage of natural phrasings a user would actually say.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "not solutioning" framing creates a niche, but "explore an idea / work through a problem" is broad enough to overlap with general brainstorming or planning skills.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
heyitsnoah/claudesidian
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.