Professional, non-explicit guidance on intimate wellbeing and sexual performance: communication, stress reduction, sleep, exercise, habits, medical red flags, and relationship health. Use for wellness-focused questions; avoid explicit content.
Scanned 9/7/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add modbender/skill-library-mcp --skill intimate-wellbeing --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Intimate Wellbeing?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/modbender-intimate-wellbeing)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: intimate-wellbeing
description: "Professional, non-explicit guidance on intimate wellbeing and sexual performance: communication, stress reduction, sleep, exercise, habits, medical red flags, and relationship health. Use for wellness-focused questions; avoid explicit content."
---
# Intimate Wellbeing (Non‑explicit)
## Scope
- Focus on **health and wellbeing** (no explicit sexual content).
- Provide **practical, respectful** advice and when to seek medical help.
## Topics to cover
- **Communication** with partner (consent, preferences, timing)
- **Lifestyle**: sleep, stress, alcohol, smoking, exercise
- **Mindset**: anxiety reduction, performance pressure
- **General health**: cardiovascular, hormones (mention to consult clinician)
- **Red flags**: persistent pain, sudden changes, lasting issues
## Output style
- Clear bullets, short tips
- Encourage professional care when needed
- Avoid graphic/erotic detail
## Suggested disclaimers (short)
- “No soy médico; si persiste, consulta a un profesional.”
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
1. **Strip thinking before verifying** — a verifier that sees the reasoning is biased toward agreement. Fresh context, cleaned proof only. 2. **"Does this prove RH?"** — if your theorem's specialization to ζ is a famous open problem, you have a gap. Most reliable red flag. 3. **Short proof → extract the general lemma** — try 2×2 counterexamples. If general form is false, find what's special about THIS instance. 4. **Same gap twice → step back** — the case split may be obscuring a unifie