critical-thinking@1.0.0
CAUTION· static onlyPublisher claims: "【批判性思维·学会提问】把尼尔·布朗《学会提问》（第12版）蒸馏成程序化、可套用的论证拆解与评估方法论。覆盖：论证结构拆解（论题/结论/理由/证据/假设）、10个批判性问题清单、逻辑谬误识别模板、证据效力判定（个人经历/案例/证言/权威/观察/调查研究）、替代原因与相关性≠因果、数据欺骗检查、省略信息清单、灰度结论与条件句、认知偏见防御（系统1/确认偏误/可得性等）。当用户说"帮我分析这段论述""这个观点站得住吗""有没有逻辑谬误""证据可靠吗""找出替代原因""数据是不是在骗人""这段话省略了什么""批判性思维""学会提问""论证怎么拆解""识别认知偏差"时使用。" Observed in sandbox: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.
Coverage
Static only; nothing was run yet.The label rests on the code, the instruction files and the publisher. The honeypot run replaces this verdict when it completes.
Is [email protected] safe to install?
KillerSkills analysed it statically (a sandbox run is pending) on 2026-11-08 and scored it 71/100 (Caution). It is not known to be malicious, but it has behaviour or code a security policy should decide on before install. Summary: static analysis only — behavior not yet observed.
Behavior trace
Queued for honeypot run · static analysis onlyThis version has not been detonated yet. The score above counts behavior as unknown (50/100), so it cannot read Verified until the honeypot run completes and replaces this verdict.
Static findings
No findings across 323 lines in 3 files.
Cost to the agent
Tokens estimated at four characters each. Skills load their instruction text when triggered; the figure is what that costs.
Known vulnerabilities
Vulnerability advisories (OSV) cover npm and PyPI packages; this registry has no advisory database.
What would make this Verified
9 points to 80 · weights: behavior 45%, static 25%, prompt 15%, publisher 15%- Unclaimed publisher≈ +8 on the totalClaim jiaxinmmhh: a verified publisher gets +50 on publisher trust. It is free and usually instant with GitHub sign-in.