CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

intent-recognition

意图识别,理解用户输入的真实意图和上下文

Quality

67%

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 ./skills/intent-recognition/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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.

The body is a compact, well-structured instruction skill: a concrete input contract, five clearly named analysis dimensions, a fully typed output schema, and brief cautions. Its main weaknesses are minor — placeholder example values without derivation guidance, no criteria for suggested_actions, and no conflict-resolution rule between dimensions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean: it never explains what intent recognition is, and every section (任务, 输入, 识别维度, 输出格式) carries load. The only soft padding is the 注意事项 section ("情绪状态评估要谨慎"), which gives direction without specifics — minor instances that could be trimmed, matching anchor 4 rather than the fully lean anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it supplies a complete, typed JSON output template (primary_intent, emotional_state with valence/arousal, urgency, execution_capacity) plus a concrete input contract — mostly executable guidance with minor gaps, matching anchor 4. Not score 5: example values (confidence 0.95, available_time "2h") are hardcoded placeholders with no guidance on deriving them, and suggested_actions has no generation criteria.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A simple single-task skill whose flow is unambiguous: read the templated input, analyze the five named dimensions, emit the JSON. Section ordering mirrors this pipeline and there are no destructive or batch operations requiring validation, so no cap applies. Score 4 rather than 5 because there is no guidance on weighing dimensions or resolving conflicts between them (e.g., when 显性意图 and 隐性意图 disagree).

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is ~65 lines (~30 prose lines plus the JSON schema) with clear, well-ordered sections and no external references needed — none exist and none are required for a single-task skill. Per the simple-skill scoring note, well-organized sections with no need for external files warrant 5; nothing is buried or inlined that belongs elsewhere.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

41%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.

The description correctly names its domain but is little more than a domain label: it restates 'intent recognition' as its own action, provides no trigger guidance for when the skill should activate, and does not distinguish itself from generic user-understanding capabilities. It reads like the terse bad examples rather than the good ones.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user input's goal is ambiguous, when a request seems to hide an unstated need, or when routing a message to the right handler." (addresses completeness)

Enumerate concrete capabilities instead of restating the domain, e.g. "Classifies user input into intent types (goal setting, task management, information query, status update, help request), infers unstated needs, and assesses emotional state and urgency." (addresses specificity)

Include distinguishing keywords users would naturally say — "what did they mean", "read between the lines", "hidden need", "NLU", "intent classification" — to reduce conflict with general assistant skills. (addresses trigger_term_quality and distinctiveness_conflict_risk)

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("意图识别") but the only stated action ("理解用户输入的真实意图和上下文") merely restates the domain in generic terms, like "Processes PDF files". It does not list any concrete actions such as classifying intent types or scoring urgency, so it falls below anchor 3.

2 / 5

Completeness

A 'what' is stated (recognize intent, understand true intent and context) but the 'when' is entirely absent — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3. Not score 4 because the when-clause is missing rather than merely implicit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("意图识别", "用户输入", "真实意图", "上下文") but common natural variations users would actually say are missing, matching "Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms". Not score 2 because the terms are domain-relevant rather than purely generic.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"理解用户输入的真实意图和上下文" describes what virtually every conversational or assistant skill does, giving very broad overlap risk with many similar skills ("Very broad; high overlap risk"). Not score 3 because nothing concrete narrows it to a distinguishable niche.

2 / 5

Total

10

/

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

ooooooooooooooooooop/ai_life_os

Path

skills/intent-recognition/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.