CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

moai-foundation-philosopher

Strategic thinking framework integrating First Principles Analysis, Stanford Design Thinking, and MIT Systems Engineering for deeper problem-solving. Use for architecture decisions or root cause analysis.

47

Quality

51%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.moai/archive/skills/v3.0/moai-foundation-philosopher/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%

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

The skill is thorough, well-structured, and genuinely actionable for strategic decision-making, with a clear five-phase workflow and supporting templates. Its main weaknesses are verbosity (it teaches concepts Claude already knows and cites unverified impact stats) and a progressive-disclosure gap where advertised module files are missing and the detailed content remains inline.

Suggestions

Trim the widely-known explanations (Five Whys mechanics, standard cognitive-bias definitions) and the unverifiable impact percentages (e.g., 'reduces complexity by 30-50%', 'prevents 40-60% of pivots') to tighten the token budget.

Add explicit validation gates between phases (e.g., 'Do not proceed to Alternative Generation until assumptions are rated High/Medium/Low with a validation method') and require the verification checklist to be completed before a decision record is finalized.

Either create the four referenced module files (assumption-matrix.md, first-principles.md, trade-off-analysis.md, cognitive-bias.md) and move the detailed phase content into them, or remove the broken module links so navigation matches the actual bundle.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is well organized and mostly free of basic-concept padding, but it is lengthy and restates widely-known material (Five Whys mechanics, common cognitive biases) that Claude already knows, plus unverified impact statistics ('reduces complexity by 30-50%').

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete, usable artifacts (assumption documentation fields, weighted scoring method, decision record template, verification checklist), but as an instruction-only skill it offers no executable command or code and some guidance stays procedural; solid but not copy-paste ready.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The five-phase process is clearly sequenced with WHY/IMPACT framing and a time-allocation guide, and there is a final verification checklist, but no inter-phase validation gates — phases proceed without checkpoints and nothing forces the verification checklist to be run before a decision is recorded.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body uses a tiered reading structure (30-second quick reference, 5-minute guide, 10+-minute advanced) and links examples.md/reference.md that exist, but the four 'modules/*.md' deep-dive links point to non-existent files while their content stays inline, so the disclosure is intended but not fully realized.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

52%

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 correctly answers 'what' and gives a brief 'use for' trigger, but it is padded with three branded methodology names that inflate specificity without adding concrete actions. It reads as competent but not maximally clear or distinctive.

Suggestions

Replace the three branded methodology names with the concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'audit assumptions, run a Five Whys root-cause analysis, compare weighted alternatives, and check for cognitive bias').

Broaden the 'Use for' clause to cover the main triggers the body enumerates (technology/library/database selection, trade-off analysis, refactoring scope, breaking-change decisions), not just architecture and root cause.

Drop 'deeper problem-solving' fluff and lead with the decision-support niche so it is distinguishable from generic planning skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the three methodologies and two action types ('architecture decisions', 'root cause analysis'), but stops short of listing multiple concrete actions the skill performs, so it does not reach the 'multiple specific concrete actions' bar.

2 / 3

Completeness

The 'what' is stated (a strategic thinking framework integrating three methodologies), and the 'Use for' clause names two activation scenarios, so 'when' is present but narrow — only two triggers rather than the fuller set the body enumerates.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces natural phrasings a user might say ('architecture decisions', 'root cause analysis') but leans on formal framework names ('First Principles Analysis', 'Stanford Design Thinking', 'MIT Systems Engineering') that a user would rarely utter verbatim.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The decision-analysis niche is somewhat specific, but 'deeper problem-solving' and 'architecture decisions' are broad enough to overlap with general planning or other strategic skills; the triggers do not carve out a sharply distinct niche.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 10 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
modu-ai/moai-adk
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.