CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

debate

Quick-action skill to run a two-round cross-model debate across ready AI provider CLIs (Claude, Codex, Antigravity, Copilot, Qwen, OpenCode) and synthesize a converged verdict. Use when resolving contested decisions via /debate.

Quality

78%

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/debate/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.

A tight, executable orchestration skill: the workflow is well sequenced with a readiness check, an explicit output-validation step, and a fallback policy, and the token budget is respected. The standout defect is the dangling sole reference — references/CLI_REFERENCE.md does not exist in the bundle and the ../../ link path is malformed — and the fallback routing lacks a concrete mechanism.

Suggestions

Create references/CLI_REFERENCE.md (or fix the path to wherever it lives) and change the link to a normal relative path, e.g. [references/CLI_REFERENCE.md](references/CLI_REFERENCE.md), so the skill's only pointer to detailed material actually resolves.

Make the fallback step concrete: specify the exact rerun command (e.g. a quintet flag to exclude a failed provider) and require re-validating that Round-2 refined positions exist after the rerun before synthesizing.

Add a one-line filled-in example of the deliverable (Round-2 Consensus / Contested Points / Recommendation with sample content) so the synthesis format is unambiguous for first-time use.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is ~40 lean lines: a one-line overview ('Executes a two-round cross-critique debate ... to surface hidden trade-offs and drive convergence on contested decisions'), a numbered workflow, one executable bash block, a compact deliverable template, and a single reference link. It assumes Claude's competence, explains nothing the model already knows, and contains no padding — fitting anchor 5 ('Lean and efficient; every token earns its place'), clearly above anchor 4 which reserves room for trimmable over-explanation.

5 / 5

Actionability

Quotes: '`quintet doctor`' and the copy-paste-ready bash block with a concrete example question and provider list are fully executable, and the deliverable template (Round-2 Consensus / Contested Points / Recommendation) is concrete. It sits at anchor 4 ('mostly executable; minor gaps') rather than 5 because step 3's fallback instruction — 'route around it using fallback responses from remaining ready models' — describes what to do without giving a command or mechanism for doing it, and the synthesis format is a template with no worked example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Quotes: '1. Check Readiness: Verify active providers with quintet doctor', 'Confirm Round-2 refined positions were generated', and 'If a provider fails during Round 1 or Round 2, route around it' show a clear four-step sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint and error-recovery path. It matches anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than 5: the fallback path has no concrete retry/rerun step and there is no re-validation after routing around a failed provider.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Quotes: 'Complete CLI subcommands, options, and setup: [references/CLI_REFERENCE.md](../../references/CLI_REFERENCE.md)' — the reference is clearly signaled and one level deep, but the target file does not exist: the bundle contains no references/ directory (only SKILL.md, config.json, and rubrics/), so the link is dangling and the ../../ path is malformed. This fits anchor 3 ('some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled' — here navigation actually breaks) rather than 4 or the simple-skill 5, since the skill's sole pointer to detailed material cannot be followed.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 solid third-person description that clearly states what the skill does (two-round cross-model debate plus verdict synthesis) and when to use it (contested decisions, via /debate). Its main weaknesses are limited action coverage beyond the two headline verbs and a single narrow trigger phrase, leaving room for more comprehensive natural-language triggers.

Suggestions

Expand the 'what' coverage beyond the two headline verbs to name the other concrete capabilities the body already documents, e.g. '...check provider readiness with quintet doctor, run a two-round cross-model debate, validate and fall back across providers, and deliver a structured consensus/contested-points/recommendation summary.'

Broaden the 'when' clause with the natural phrasings users would actually say, e.g. 'Use when resolving contested decisions, when models or reviewers disagree, or when you want a cross-checked second opinion before committing to a choice.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes: 'run a two-round cross-model debate across ready AI provider CLIs' and 'synthesize a converged verdict' name the domain plus two concrete actions, but coverage stops there — no mention of readiness checks, output validation, fallback routing, or the structured deliverable the skill produces. Fits the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' (3) better than anchor 4, which expects several specific actions listed; it is clearly above anchor 2, where actions are minimal or generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

Quotes: 'run a two-round cross-model debate across ready AI provider CLIs ... and synthesize a converged verdict' answers 'what', and 'Use when resolving contested decisions via /debate' answers 'when' explicitly. Both are present, matching anchor 4 ('when' could be more explicit or specific) rather than 5: the when-clause offers a single narrow trigger ('via /debate') without additional concrete trigger phrases, unlike the anchor-5 example with multiple natural triggers.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: 'debate', 'cross-model debate', 'contested decisions', and '/debate' give good keyword coverage with the core natural term 'debate' plus provider names (Claude, Codex, etc.). It fits anchor 4 ('Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than 5, because common user phrasings like 'models disagree', 'second opinion', or 'cross-review' are absent; it is well above anchor 3's 'missing common variations' since multiple natural trigger phrases are present.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: 'two-round cross-model debate', 'ready AI provider CLIs (Claude, Codex, Antigravity, Copilot, Qwen, OpenCode)', and 'converged verdict' establish a clear niche with distinct vocabulary. Mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against generic multi-model/consensus or second-opinion skills, fitting anchor 4 rather than 5 (anchor 5 demands minimal conflict risk, and terms like 'synthesize a verdict' or 'contested decisions' could plausibly collide with general decision-support skills).

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

salemaziel/omc-octo-quintet

Path

skills/debate/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.