CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

challenge

Challenge, push back, play devil's advocate on AI output. Use when: challenge this, are you sure, push back, prove it, what if you're wrong, devil's advocate, stress test, poke holes, second opinion, sanity check, too confident, really?, question this decision. Subcommands: anchor (committed too fast), verify (facts wrong?), framing (wrong problem?), deep (full devil's advocate in separate context).

Quality

88%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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 skill body with clear dispatch flow, an explicit validation guard with fallback handling, and clean one-level-deep progressive disclosure into real bundle files. The remaining room for improvement is modest: tighter judgment lists and a copy-paste-ready Agent prompt template for the deep subcommand.

Suggestions

Add a ready-made prompt template for the deep subcommand's Agent spawn (e.g., a fill-in prompt skeleton naming the target and pattern families) so the spawn step is copy-paste executable.

Tighten the Usage Examples section by replacing the illustrative bash comments with actual invocations (e.g., /challenge anchor <target>) showing input and expected Challenge Report output.

Consider merging overlapping guidance between the Anti-Patterns list and the When Not to Use list (e.g., trivial-target guidance appears in both) to reclaim a few tokens.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every section is operational — dispatch table, guard behavior, per-finding checklist — with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable material exists: mild redundancy across the When to Use / When Not to Use / Anti-Patterns lists and usage examples written as illustrative comments rather than invocations, placing it just below the lean anchor-5 case.

4 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete: exact AskUserQuestion text and options, per-subcommand protocol file dispatch, and a 4-part per-finding structure. It stops short of anchor 5 because no ready-made Agent prompt template is given for the deep subcommand and the first two usage examples are comments, not executable invocations.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (parse subcommand → dispatch → execute protocol → structured report) is clear, and it includes an explicit validation checkpoint with an error-recovery feedback loop (the AskUserQuestion empty-answer guard with numbered-list fallback and wait) plus a checklist for findings. Not a destructive/batch skill, so the workflow cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview: dispatch entries point to references/protocols/{anchor,verify,framing}.md, output format defers to references/reference.md, all referenced files exist in the bundle, and references are one level deep with each file's contents clearly signaled in the References section.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

91%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 description with an explicit what, an extensive natural-language trigger list, and a subcommand enumeration that adds concrete capability detail. Its only weaknesses are synonymous top-line verbs, unmentioned output format, and a few broadly-applicable trigger phrases with slight conflict risk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Challenge, push back, play devil's advocate on AI output" plus four named subcommands with their error types ("anchor (committed too fast), verify (facts wrong?), framing (wrong problem?), deep") lists several specific actions. It falls short of anchor 5 because the top-line verbs are synonymous variants of one capability and the concrete output (Challenge Report) is not mentioned.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Challenge, push back, play devil's advocate on AI output") and when ("Use when: challenge this, are you sure, ...") with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the anchor-5 pattern.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"challenge this, are you sure, push back, prove it, what if you're wrong, devil's advocate, stress test, poke holes, second opinion, sanity check, too confident, really?, question this decision" is a comprehensive list of natural phrases users would actually say, including synonyms and informal variants.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The devil's-advocate niche is clear and triggers like "poke holes" and "devil's advocate" are distinctive, but broader phrases such as "sanity check", "second opinion", and "stress test" carry minor overlap risk with code-review and testing skills, matching the anchor-4 'minor overlap risk' case rather than anchor 5's minimal risk.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

75%

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

Validation — 12 / 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: 3 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 6 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

12

/

16

Passed

Repository

pantheon-org/tekhne

Path

skills/software-engineering/challenge/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.