SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB critical-thinking

Use for critical thinking, or when the user wants a claim, plan or decision checked for weak spots: "is this right?", "what am I missing?", "poke holes", "sanity check", "devil's advocate", "red team this". Skip for execution-only tasks and wording edits.

ysskrishna/ai-agent-skills Agent Skills author: ysskrishna 2 files body ≈ 891 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 15 h ago

Use for critical thinking, or when the user wants a claim, plan or decision checked for weak spots: "is this right?", "what am I missing?", "poke holes"…

As a process B 78/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, progress reporting

AnalyzerResearchtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
98
Quality 40%
90
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
78/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Result and completion w 14
40
Failures and branches w 10
55
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 2

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 2
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:4
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)
      Use for critical thinking, or when the user wants a claim, plan or decision checked for weak spots: "is this right?", "what am I missing?", "poke holes", "sanity check", "devil's advocate", "red team
      quoted
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:18
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)
      - Phrases like "what am I missing", "steelman", "red team", "devil's advocate", "bias check", "is my reasoning sound".
      detector

    Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 78/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 23 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 891 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 255: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 12 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 23 items
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.