sequential-thinking
Structured reflective problem-solving methodology. Process: decompose, analyze, hypothesize, verify, revise. Capabilities: complex problem decomposition, adaptive planning, course correction, hypothesis verification, multi-step analysis. Actions: decompose, analyze, plan, revise, verify solutions step-by-step. Keywords: sequential thinking, problem decomposition, multi-step analysis, hypothesis verification, adaptive planning, course correction, reflective thinking, step-by-step, thought sequence, dynamic adjustment, unclear scope, complex problem, structured analysis. Use when: decomposing complex problems, planning with revision capability, analyzing unclear scope, verifying hypotheses, needing course correction, solving multi-step problems.
79
Quality
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
54%
3.17xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
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.
This description is well-structured with explicit 'Use when' triggers and comprehensive keyword coverage, earning strong marks for completeness and trigger terms. However, the capabilities described remain somewhat abstract (decompose, analyze, verify) rather than concrete observable actions, and the generic problem-solving language creates moderate conflict risk with other analytical skills.
Suggestions
Add more concrete, observable action examples (e.g., 'breaks down ambiguous requirements into testable components' rather than just 'decompose')
Differentiate from general analysis skills by emphasizing the iterative/reflective nature more distinctly (e.g., 'Use when initial approach may need revision' or 'when exploring uncertain solution paths')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (problem-solving methodology) and lists actions like 'decompose, analyze, hypothesize, verify, revise', but these remain somewhat abstract rather than concrete observable actions. The description uses process-oriented language rather than specific tangible outcomes. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (structured reflective problem-solving with decomposition, analysis, hypothesis verification) AND when (explicit 'Use when:' clause covering decomposing complex problems, planning with revision, analyzing unclear scope, verifying hypotheses, course correction, multi-step problems). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes good coverage of natural terms users might say: 'step-by-step', 'complex problem', 'multi-step analysis', 'unclear scope', 'course correction'. The keywords section explicitly lists variations users would naturally use when needing structured thinking assistance. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While it carves out a niche around structured thinking and problem decomposition, terms like 'complex problem', 'analysis', and 'planning' are generic enough to potentially overlap with many analytical or planning skills. The methodology focus helps but doesn't fully distinguish it. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill that efficiently communicates a reflective problem-solving methodology. The content excels at workflow clarity and progressive disclosure, with clear sequencing and appropriate references to deeper materials. The main weakness is that the 'actionability' is more about thinking patterns than executable operations, though this is appropriate for a methodology-focused skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, using minimal prose with structured formatting. Every section serves a purpose without explaining concepts Claude already knows. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear structural templates and markers (e.g., 'Thought 1/5', '[REVISION]', '[BRANCH A]') but these are formatting patterns rather than executable code. The guidance is concrete but somewhat abstract in application. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step core process is clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints (revision triggers, branching decisions, completion criteria). The workflow includes feedback loops for course correction and hypothesis verification. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent structure with a concise overview, optional scripts section, and well-signaled one-level-deep references to detailed patterns, examples, and advanced techniques in separate files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- majiayu000/claude-skill-registry-data
- Commit
2bbaa03
- 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.