CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

simulate-elite-experts

通过模拟相关领域顶级专家的思考、分歧与收敛,辅助高复杂度、高风险决策。 用于用户要求模拟顶尖人物、比较强势观点,或询问“应该找哪些优秀人物来讨论某个问题,以及他们可能会怎么说”。 适用于“用世界级专家视角思考”“模拟顶级领域专家”“扮演最强领域人物”和“使用四视角对话”等请求。

64

Quality

76%

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/simulate-elite-experts/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is simulate-elite-experts in ooooooooooooooooooop/agent-tools

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%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 exceptionally concrete and well-checkpointed, with strong validation gates and templates, but it is held back by substantial internal repetition and a monolithic structure that keeps the framework detail inline instead of splitting it into reference files.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the profile contract: state role/round/section counts once (e.g. in 'Required Output Sections (By Profile)') and have 'Output Contract Guardrail' and 'Controlled Execution Profiles' reference it rather than restating it.

Move the lengthy 'Blind-Spot Gated Overlay Workflow' into a dedicated reference file (e.g. references/blind-spot-gated.md) and keep only the invocation surfaces and a one-paragraph summary in SKILL.md.

Merge 'When NOT to Use This Framework' with 'Applicability Pre-Check (Gate 0)' since they cover the same skip-criteria, to remove the overlap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~440-line body is noticeably verbose through internal repetition: the profile contract (role/round/section counts) is restated in 'Output Contract Guardrail', 'Controlled Execution Profiles', and again fully in 'Required Output Sections (By Profile)', and 'When NOT to Use This Framework' overlaps with 'Applicability Pre-Check'. It does not pad with concepts Claude already knows, but several sections are redundant and could be tightened.

2 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete — exact role/round/section counts, numeric scoring gates (≥5/6, ≥2/2), mandatory confidence-tag syntax, a copy-paste Post-Use Self-Check template, and per-failure recovery actions. It stops short of a 5 only because no fully worked roster/dialogue example is shown inline (those live in references).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 7-step Workflow is reinforced by explicit validation gates (Applicability Pre-Check, Real-Person Scoring Matrix, Roster Diversity Matrix), 8-item preflight and 4-item postflight checklists, per-round Rolling Uncertainty Tracker, an Anonymous Meta-Review step, and Failure Modes with recovery actions — matching the top anchor for checkpoints and feedback loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Bundle files are well-organized and real (references/ holds eval-rubric, eval-cases, first-use-guide, and en/zh output-templates; scripts/ holds the lint/run validators), and the body signals them with backtick paths. However SKILL.md itself is monolithic — the full four-lens framework, repeated profile contracts, and the long blind-spot-gated overlay workflow are inlined rather than offloaded to reference files, so it reads as more than an overview.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

90%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, third-person description that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with rich natural-language trigger synonyms. Its only weak spot is that the named actions are cognitive/abstract, keeping specificity just below the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (elite-expert simulation for decisions) and a few concrete actions — '模拟...思考、分歧与收敛' and '比较强势观点' — but the actions are cognitive/abstract rather than a comprehensive list of operations, so it sits at the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the multi-action anchor above.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' ('通过模拟...思考、分歧与收敛,辅助高复杂度、高风险决策') and 'when' ('用于...适用于...等请求') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It packs in many natural user phrases and their synonyms — '模拟顶尖人物', '比较强势观点', '应该找哪些优秀人物来讨论', '用世界级专家视角思考', '模拟顶级领域专家', '扮演最强领域人物', '使用四视角对话' — giving comprehensive coverage of how a user would actually request this.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The four-lens elite-expert simulation niche is highly specific with distinctive triggers, making accidental firing for unrelated skills very unlikely.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
ooooooooooooooooooop/personal-ai
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.