CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

screen-detox

当用户刷手机/短视频/社交媒体上瘾、感觉空虚、想戒断多巴胺零食时调用。 核心理念: 所有屏幕活动与更少幸福相关(作者断言无例外); 屏幕=用长期后果换短期快感的多巴胺零食; 用习惯替换五步戒断。 不适用于: 工作需要屏幕的职业场景(区分工作屏幕与消费屏幕)。 Triggers: 刷手机/上瘾/短视频/社交媒体/多巴胺/戒断/屏幕时间/screen time/dopamine/addiction

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/screen-detox/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is screen-detox in kangarooking/cangjie-skill

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 distillation with a genuinely actionable, checkpoint-driven execution section and thoughtful boundary treatment. Its weaknesses are redundancy (duplicated related-skills, audit metadata), a dangling test-results.md reference, and no use of bundle files to move case studies and source material out of the main context.

Suggestions

Delete the 「## 审计信息」 section and the duplicate 「## 相关 skills (阶段 3 定稿)」 section (the frontmatter already carries related_skills) — both are pure token cost.

Remove or fix the dangling 「见 test-results.md」 reference — no such file exists in the bundle, so it fails navigation and misleads.

Move the R source quote, A1 case studies, and A2 trigger-scenario lists into a references/ file (e.g., references/cases.md) and keep only a one-line pointer in SKILL.md, trimming the main body well under 50 lines.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly tight and assumes Claude's competence (no explaining of what dopamine or screen time is), but carries clear padding: the related-skills list appears twice (frontmatter and 「## 相关 skills (阶段 3 定稿)」), the 「## 审计信息」 section (V1/V2/V3 checks, 「测试通过率: 见 test-results.md」, 「蒸馏时间: 2026-08-01」) is process metadata irrelevant to executing the skill, and the A1 case narratives retell book anecdotes. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' — below 4 because several sections (audit info, duplicated related-skills) earn no place, above 2 because nothing explains concepts Claude already knows.

3 / 5

Actionability

The E section gives four concrete steps, each with a measurable 完成标准 ('记录 3 天,标出最痛的 1 个消费型 app/时段', '告诉 3 个朋友你的戒断目标') plus a quantified 判停条件 ('若 7 天后复发 ≥3 次,缩小目标'). This is mostly executable guidance with minor gaps — some steps leave the actual action loose ('为每个触发时段…准备一个非屏幕替代') and no example dialogue or concrete plan template is provided — matching anchor 4; it is below 5 because a few instructions remain directional rather than copy-paste ready, and above 3 because everything is real guidance, not pseudocode.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–4 are clearly sequenced, each has an explicit 完成标准 checkpoint, and step 4 includes a feedback loop ('若 7 天后复发 ≥3 次,缩小目标…不责备自己') for error recovery. It matches 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' — below 5 because there is no explicit gating between steps (no 'only proceed when…') and no recovery guidance for steps 1–3 (e.g., what if screen-time stats are unavailable); above 3 because checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clearly headed and well-organized, but this is a ~100-line monolithic SKILL.md with no bundle: content that would belong in separate files is inlined (the R source quote, the A1 case studies, the A2 trigger scenarios), and the one reference it does make — 「测试通过率: 见 test-results.md」 — points to a file that does not exist in the bundle. This matches 'Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline'; it is above 2 because the headers make navigation genuinely easy, and below 4 because there is no working one-level-deep reference structure at all plus a dangling reference.

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 an explicit use-when clause, a concrete trigger list, and a stated non-applicability boundary. Its main weakness is that the 'what' is expressed as the source book's core idea rather than an enumeration of the skill's concrete capabilities.

Suggestions

State the skill's concrete actions in the description itself (e.g., '量化屏幕消耗、改造环境、设计替代活动、对外承诺' — quantify usage, redesign environment, design replacement activities, commit publicly) instead of only the philosophical framing.

Add missing natural trigger synonyms such as 'doomscrolling', '熬夜刷手机', '戒掉', and 'phone addiction' to the Triggers line for fuller coverage.

Move the skill-level disambiguation from the body into the description (one clause distinguishing this from meditation/habit skills) to further reduce conflict risk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (screen/dopamine detox) and one or two concrete actions — 「用习惯替换五步戒断」 (five-step habit-replacement detox) and 「区分工作屏幕与消费屏幕」 — but never enumerates what the skill actually does for the user (quantify usage, redesign environment, substitute activities). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; it is below 4 because no list of several specific capabilities is present, and above 2 because the actions named are not merely generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit use-when clause (「当用户刷手机/短视频/社交媒体上瘾、感觉空虚、想戒断多巴胺零食时调用」 plus a Triggers line) and a 'what' via 「核心理念: …用习惯替换五步戒断」. It falls short of 5 because the 'what' is framed as source-book philosophy rather than a concrete statement of what the skill does (e.g., guides the user through a five-step habit-replacement plan); it is above 3 because the 'when' is fully explicit with concrete trigger phrases, not merely implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The explicit trigger list 「刷手机/上瘾/短视频/社交媒体/多巴胺/戒断/屏幕时间/screen time/dopamine/addiction」 covers the natural phrases a user would actually say in both Chinese and English. It is below 5 because common variations are missing (doomscrolling, 熬夜刷手机, 戒掉, phone addiction), and above 3 because coverage is broad and includes natural colloquial terms like 刷手机 rather than only jargon.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (screen-consumption addiction, not general habits or work screen use) and the explicit exclusion 「不适用于: 工作需要屏幕的职业场景」 reduces overlap with adjacent skills. It is below 5 because terms like 上瘾/戒断/dopamine could plausibly fire for adjacent skills (meditation, general habit change) without the skill-level disambiguation that only appears in the body, and above 3 because the consumption-vs-work boundary is stated in the description itself.

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/screen-detox/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.