CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

rational-buddhism

当用户问某主张/玄学/灵修该不该信、想建立自己的验证标准、或寻找科学与精神的结合点时调用。 核心理念: 尝试一切, 亲自测试, 保持怀疑, 保留有用的, 舍弃没用的; 不可证伪的主张不进入基本真理; 冥想/接纳等内在技术可保留。 不适用于: 需要信仰安慰的临终/哀伤场景(尊重个体选择)。 Triggers: 该不该信/玄学/灵修/冥想/可证伪/验证/理性/rational buddhism/verify/belief

Quality

72%

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 ./books/naval-almanack-skill/rational-buddhism/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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, genuinely actionable body with clear step sequencing and honest boundary/blind-spot sections. The main flaws are meta-audit noise (version tags, distillation date, a dangling test-results.md reference) and a fully inline monolithic layout with no bundle separation.

Suggestions

Remove or relocate the 审计信息 section — version tags (v18), validation checkmarks, and the distillation date add tokens without helping execution, and '见 test-results.md' points to a file that does not exist in the bundle.

Add one worked example in the A1/E sections showing the full pipeline applied to a single claim (e.g., cold-water therapy) from falsifiability check to belief-list entry.

Trim the long opening block quote to the one or two sentences the methodology actually depends on.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient structured content, but the full block quote, the audit section ('验证通过: V1 ✓ / V2 ✓ / V3 ✓ (v18)', '蒸馏时间: 2026-08-01'), and the dangling '见 test-results.md' reference add noise that could be trimmed or moved out of the skill body.

3 / 5

Actionability

The E section gives four concrete steps each with an explicit 完成标准 (falsifiability question to ask, 30-day personal test with before/after records, keep/discard rule, 3-item belief list with evidence levels) — executable guidance for an instruction-only skill. It falls short of 5 because there is no worked example applying the steps to one concrete claim.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence (跑可证伪测试 → 跑亲自验证 → 按结果取舍 → 写入个人原则) with per-step completion criteria acting as checkpoints. No destructive or batch operations, so no validation cap applies; missing only a feedback loop (e.g., re-test after discarding) to reach 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections, but everything lives inline in a single ~100-line file — beyond the simple-skill threshold — and the body references a test-results.md that does not exist in the bundle, leaving a broken navigation pointer.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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, bilingual description with explicit trigger guidance and a rare explicit non-applicability boundary. Its main weakness is that the 'what' is expressed as core beliefs rather than concrete capabilities the skill performs.

Suggestions

Rewrite the 核心理念 line as 2-3 concrete capability statements (e.g., 'evaluates claims against falsifiability criteria, designs personal 30-day test plans, builds a tiered belief list') instead of a philosophy motto.

Add a few common trigger synonyms users actually say, such as 伪科学, 迷信, and 'spiritual practice'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (evaluating 玄学/灵修 claims) and a couple of concrete operations ('不可证伪的主张不进入基本真理', '保留有用的, 舍弃没用的'), but it reads as a philosophy statement rather than a list of specific skill capabilities.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly answered: '当用户问...该不该信...时调用' plus the Triggers line gives a clear 'when', and the 核心理念 sentence gives a 'what'. The 'what' is abstract, keeping it below the top anchor.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The explicit Triggers line covers natural phrases in both Chinese and English ('该不该信/玄学/灵修/冥想/可证伪/验证/理性/rational buddhism/verify/belief'), giving good keyword coverage, though common variations like 伪科学/迷信/spiritual are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (rational verification standard for spiritual claims) and even states an exclusion boundary ('不适用于: 需要信仰安慰的临终/哀伤场景'), with only minor overlap risk against adjacent meditation/judgment skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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

kangarooking/cangjie-skill

Path

books/naval-almanack-skill/rational-buddhism/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.