For Agents · MCP

Your task.
The right skill.

The tunnel uses the same cards as the catalogue. Browse only as deep as needed — or load a broad bundle immediately.

No local installationNo M11 loginRead-only

Broad task

Load 5–10 and go

SEO, Sales, Agents or another broad area → one bundle call → work.

MCP endpoint: https://skills.m11.ch/mcp

Read-only access to published skills. Default 8, maximum 10 skills / 120,000 characters.

Task Packs

Marketing Foundation

Compact two-skill starter: clarify positioning and choose a lead magnet. Use Marketing Launch for the broader eight-skill go-to-market workflow.

Marketing Launch

Build an evidence-led marketing plan from ICP and competition through positioning, campaigns, growth and measurement.

Agent Audit Essentials

Diagnose architecture and context, plan agent-team responsibilities, then organize project context and session handoffs. Memory and cost-runtime reviews remain outside this pack.

Conversion and Activation Review

Review the journey from landing page and lead capture through registration, first value and transparent upgrades.

Campaign Content and Brand Review

Plan a campaign, draft its channel content and review the work against actual brand guidance.

Content and Launch Planning

Prioritize an editorial roadmap and plan how to launch and distribute it across suitable channels.

Customer, Market and Community Research

Understand customer needs, compare competitors and plan a community around real member value.

Lead Magnet to Lifecycle Nurture

Choose a relevant lead magnet, then draft a permission-based nurture journey with entry, suppression and exit rules.

API Contract and Observability

Define the API contract, then plan how to observe its latency, failures and retries. Guidance and checklist; no production changes.

Data Analysis Foundation

Profile a dataset, choose and interpret statistical methods, then validate calculations and conclusions before sharing.

Choose an area

01 · Category

What the MCP returns at this step

05 · Agents · Evaluation

AI Work Self-Assessment

Assess task difficulty and execution quality using a two-axis rubric.

kiarbeitsbewertungself-eval

Alireza — Self Eval · Original SKILL.md

---
name: "self-eval"
description: "Honestly evaluate AI work quality using a two-axis scoring system. Use after completing a task, code review, or work session to get an unbiased assessment. Detects score inflation, forces devil's advocate reasoning, and persists scores across sessions."
license: "MIT"
---

# Self-Eval: Honest Work Evaluation

ultrathink

**Tier:** STANDARD
**Category:** Engineering / Quality
**Dependencies:** None (prompt-only, no external tools required)

## Description

Self-eval is a Claude Code skill that produces honest, calibrated work evaluations. It replaces the default AI tendency to rate everything 4/5 with a structured two-axis scoring system, mandatory devil's advocate reasoning, and cross-session anti-inflation detection.

The core insight: AI self-assessment converges to "everything is a 4" because a single-axis score conflates task difficulty with execution quality. Self-eval separates these axes, then combines them via a fixed matrix that the model cannot override.

## Features

- **Two-axis scoring** — Independently rates task ambition (Low/Medium/High) and execution quality (Poor/Adequate/Strong), then combines via a lookup matrix
- **Mandatory devil's advocate** — Before finalizing, must argue for both higher AND lower scores, then resolve the tension
- **Score persistence** — Appends scores to `.self-eval-scores.jsonl` in the working directory, building history across sessions
- **Anti-inflation detection** — Reads past scores and flags clustering (4+ of last 5 identical)
- **Matrix-locked scoring** — The composite score comes from the matrix, not from direct selection. Low ambition caps at 2/5 regardless of execution quality

## Usage

After completing work in a Claude Code session:

```
/self-eval
```

With context about what to evaluate:

```
/self-eval the authentication refactor we just completed
```

The skill reviews the conversation history, identifies what was accomplished, scores it on both axes, runs the devil's advocate check, and appends the result to the score history file.

## Examples

### Example 1: Feature Implementation

```
/self-eval added pagination to the user list API
```

Output:
```
## Self-Evaluation

**Task:** Added cursor-based pagination to the user list API endpoint
**Ambition:** Medium — New feature with established patterns, but required careful backwards compatibility
**Execution:** Strong — All tests pass, handles edge cases, existing clients unaffected

**Devil's Advocate:**
- Lower: Pagination is well-documented. The pattern was copied from another endpoint with minor changes. Could argue Low ambition.
- Higher: The backwards-compat requirement made this harder than a greenfield implementation. Had to support both offset and cursor modes.
- Resolution: Medium ambition holds — the backwards-compat constraint added real complexity beyond copy-paste.

**Score: 4** — Solid execution on meaningful work with real constraints.
```

### Example 2: Bug Fix

```
/self-eval
```

Output:
```
## Self-Evaluation

**Task:** Fixed race condition in the checkout flow causing duplicate orders
**Ambition:** Medium — Required debugging across 3 services to find the root cause
**Execution:** Adequate — Fix works but the test only covers the exact scenario reported, not the general class of race conditions

**Devil's Advocate:**
- Lower: The fix was a single line (adding a mutex). Once found, it was trivial.
- Higher: Finding the root cause across 3 services took real investigation. The mutex placement required understanding the full flow.
- Resolution: Medium ambition is correct for the investigation, but execution drops to Adequate — a more thorough fix would address the pattern, not just the instance.

**Score: 3** — Good debugging work but the fix is narrow.
```

---

## What to Evaluate

$ARGUMENTS

If no arguments provided, review the full conversation history to identify what was accomplished this session. Summarize the work in one sentence before scoring.

## How to Score — Two-Axis Model

Score on two independent axes, then combine using the matrix. Do NOT pick a number first and rationalize it — rate each axis separately, then read the matrix.

### Axis 1: Task Ambition (what was attempted)

Rate the difficulty and risk of what was worked on. NOT how well it was done.

- **Low (1)** — Safe, familiar, routine. No real risk of failure. Examples: minor config changes, simple refactors, copy-paste with small modifications, tasks you were confident you'd complete before starting.
- **Medium (2)** — Meaningful work with novelty or challenge. Partial failure was possible. Examples: new feature implementation, integrating an unfamiliar API, architectural changes, debugging a tricky issue.
- **High (3)** — Ambitious, unfamiliar, or high-stakes. Real risk of complete failure. Examples: building something from scratch in an unfamiliar domain, complex system redesign, performance-critical optimization, shipping to production under pressure.

**Self-check:** If you were confident of success before starting, ambition is Low or Medium, not High.

### Axis 2: Execution Quality (how well it was done)

Rate the quality of the actual output, independent of how ambitious the task was.

- **Poor (1)** — Major failures, incomplete, wrong output, or abandoned mid-task. The deliverable doesn't meet its own stated criteria.
- **Adequate (2)** — Completed but with gaps, shortcuts, or missing rigor. Did the thing but left obvious improvements on the table.
- **Strong (3)** — Well-executed, thorough, quality output. No obvious improvements left undone given the scope.

### Composite Score Matrix

| | Poor Exec (1) | Adequate Exec (2) | Strong Exec (3) |
|------------------------|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| **Low Ambition (1)** | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| **Medium Ambition (2)**| 2 | 3 | 4 |
| **High Ambition (3)** | 2 | 4 | 5 |

**Read the matrix, don't override it.** The composite is your score. The devil's advocate below can cause you to re-rate an axis — but you cannot directly override the matrix result.

Key properties:
- Low ambition caps at 2. Safe work done perfectly is still safe work.
- A 5 requires BOTH high ambition AND strong execution. It should be rare.
- High ambition + poor execution = 2. Bold failure hurts.
- The most common honest score for solid work is 3 (medium ambition, adequate execution).

## Devil's Advocate (MANDATORY)

Before writing your final score, you MUST write all three of these:

1. **Case for LOWER:** Why might this work deserve a lower score? What was easy, what was avoided, what was less ambitious than it appears? Would a skeptical reviewer agree with your axis ratings?
2. **Case for HIGHER:** Why might this work deserve a higher score? What was genuinely challenging, surprising, or exceeded the original plan?
3. **Resolution:** If either case reveals you mis-rated an axis, re-rate it and recompute the matrix result. Then state your final score with a 1-2 sentence justification that addresses at least one point from each case.

If your devil's advocate is less than 3 sentences total, you're not engaging with it — try harder.

## Anti-Inflation Check

Check for a score history file at `.self-eval-scores.jsonl` in the current working directory.

If the file exists, read it and check the last 5 scores. If 4+ of the last 5 are the same number, flag it:
> **Warning: Score clustering detected.** Last 5 scores: [list]. Consider whether you're anchoring to a default.

If the file doesn't exist, ask yourself: "Would an outside observer rate this the same way I am?"

## Score Persistence

After presenting your evaluation, append one line to `.self-eval-scores.jsonl` in the current working directory:

```json
{"date":"YYYY-MM-DD","score":N,"ambition":"Low|Medium|High","execution":"Poor|Adequate|Strong","task":"1-sentence summary"}
```

This enables the anti-inflation check to work across sessions. If the file doesn't exist, create it.

## Output Format

Present your evaluation as:

## Self-Evaluation

**Task:** [1-sentence summary of what was attempted]
**Ambition:** [Low/Medium/High] — [1-sentence justification]
**Execution:** [Poor/Adequate/Strong] — [1-sentence justification]

**Devil's Advocate:**
- Lower: [why it might deserve less]
- Higher: [why it might deserve more]
- Resolution: [final reasoning]

**Score: [1-5]** — [1-sentence final justification]

When to use

Assess task difficulty and execution quality using a two-axis rubric.

What you get

The complete original guidance with attributed source and declared limitations.

How it works

Clarify the task and evidence, then apply relevant source instructions within authorized scope.

Requirements

Completed task, requested scope, evidence and actual outcomes.

Delivery and review notes

Brief source danger screening: full-text pattern triage and review of flagged passages, not a comprehensive audit or functional test. The rubric is heuristic; self-scores are not independent validation. Persistent evaluation logs need task-scoped write permission. Referenced scripts, templates, integrations and sibling skills are not supplied or installed unless explicitly listed as included. External calls, account changes, messages and file writes require the actual user task and authorization.

Starting prompt

Use AI Work Self-Assessment for [TASK]. Ask for missing inputs: Completed task, requested scope, evidence and actual outcomes. Identify assumptions and missing tools before execution; do not claim results or approvals without evidence.

Not for

Claiming runtime installation, certified safety, verified numerical outputs or permission for external actions merely from loading this source.

What M11 added

German routing, task scope and source limitations. Original author attribution: alirezarezvani (repository; source author not declared). Brief source danger screening: full-text pattern triage and review of flagged passages, not a comprehensive audit or functional test. The rubric is heuristic; self-scores are not independent validation. Persistent evaluation logs need task-scoped write permission. Referenced scripts, templates, integrations and sibling skills are not supplied or installed unless explicitly listed as included. External calls, account changes, messages and file writes require the actual user task and authorization.

Original authorship remains with alirezarezvani/claude-skills · Original source ↗

Original license & copyright

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2025 Alireza Rezvani

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

Source SHA-256: 0396394941477744e8a46f7653d2af20d4ea8ba325469f039244bba986c72642
Snapshot checked: 2026-09-28T15:50:31.645Z

Find a skill.Get to work.

All skills

Multi-Agent Orchestration

AI Context Window Audit

AI Agent Architecture Audit

AI Skill Discovery

Lead Magnet Strategy

Ideal Customer Profile

Go-to-Market Strategy

Marketing Campaign Ideas

Product Growth Loops

Competitor Analysis

North Star Metric

Product Positioning

Product Vision

Go-to-Market Motion Selection

Customer Feedback and JTBD Analysis

PESTLE Market Environment Analysis

Customer Journey Mapping

Ansoff Growth Options

Data Analysis Validation

Dataset Profiling

Statistical Analysis Guidance

Programmatic SEO Planning

Landing Page and Form Conversion Review

Paywall and Upgrade Planning

Signup and Registration Review

User Onboarding and Activation

Popup and Modal Planning

Email Sequence Copy and Flow

Marketing Campaign Planning

Marketing Content Drafting

Brand Voice and Content Review

Marketing Performance Reporting

Sales Company Research

Company and Contact Enrichment

Website Information Architecture

Content Strategy and Editorial Roadmap

Product Launch Planning

Customer Research and Voice of Customer

Community Growth and Member Experience

Competitor Research Profiles

Roadmap and Release Communication

Lifecycle Email Sequences

API Contracts and Interface Design

Observability and Instrumentation Planning

Agent Context and Session Handoff

Product Discovery Sprint

Deal Quality Scoring

Enrichment Waterfall Design

Customer Retention Playbook

Sales Coaching Practice

Revenue Cohort Analysis

Intent Signal Scoring

Customer Identity Matching

Segment Activation Planning

Sales Call Review

Retention Dashboard Design

Sales Coaching Competencies

Offer Delivery Design

Offer Value Communication

Service Productization

Conversion Hypothesis Prioritization

Braze Engagement Guidance

Brand Voice Guide Design

Content Pipeline Orchestration

Website Brand Profile

Buyer Objection Clarification

Klaviyo Integration Guidance

Offer Bonus Planning

Klaviyo Marketing Review

Cross-Platform Advertising Review

Expertise Business Model

LinkedIn Advertising Guidance

TikTok Advertising Guidance

Evidence Research Brief

Cinematic Video Prompts

Visual Prompt Model Adaptation

Visual Prompt Diagnostics

Short Film Development

Find a skill.
Get to work.