CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

acme-workspace/bigger-skill-reviewer

Anthropic skill best-practice reviewer for orgs that prefer large, consolidated single-file skills. Forks the default rubric: progressive disclosure rewards a well-organised single file rather than penalising it, and conciseness no longer docks legitimate length.

70

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Risky

Do not use without reviewing

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content body is well-structured with a clear 5-step workflow, concrete JSON templates, and explicit formulas. It provides highly actionable guidance with good progressive disclosure through bundle files. The main weakness is minor redundancy between step descriptions and the closing reminders section.

Suggestions

Remove or consolidate the 'Important reminders' section — its bullet points duplicate guidance already stated in Steps 1-5, wasting tokens.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient at ~100 lines, but the 'Important reminders' section at the end repeats guidance already stated in earlier steps (e.g., 'Every dimension id must appear in scores', 'Read bundle files selectively'). The trust boundary section adds necessary tokens but the overall content could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully concrete guidance: exact JSON output templates, specific computation formulas (weightedScore, normalizedScore), explicit file paths to read (./rubrics/, ./config.json, schemas/results.schema.json), and clear handling for failure cases (success: false with errorMessage).

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear 5-step sequential process with explicit dependencies between steps. Includes validation guidance (conform to schema), error handling (judge failure → success: false), and specific checkpoints (parse frontmatter → discover rubrics → run judges → compute scores → write results).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections (Trust boundary, Steps 1-5, Reminders). Bundle files contain rubrics, schemas, and config — all appropriately referenced by path in the body. For a ~100-line skill with supporting bundle files, the structure is well-balanced with no deeply nested references.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

85%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is strong: it clearly states what the skill does (evaluate SKILL.md quality via rubric-based judges) and when to use it (skill review workflows, testing skill quality). The only weakness is that trigger terms lean toward domain jargon rather than natural user language.

Suggestions

Add more natural trigger term variations (e.g., 'grade', 'score', 'assess') alongside the technical terms to improve discoverability.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions: 'Evaluate a SKILL.md for quality', 'Dynamically discovers all rubric files', 'emits one named judge per rubric'. These are specific, actionable capabilities — not vague abstractions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers WHAT ('Evaluate a SKILL.md for quality using rubric-based LLM judges') AND WHEN ('Use when running a skill review workflow or testing skill quality against configurable rubrics') with an explicit 'Use when' clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant terms like 'skill review workflow', 'skill quality', 'rubrics', and 'judges', but these are somewhat domain-specific jargon. Missing more natural variations a user might say (e.g., 'grade', 'score', 'evaluate skill', 'check skill quality').

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly specific niche — SKILL.md evaluation via rubric-based LLM judges. The combination of 'SKILL.md', 'rubric', and 'judges' creates a distinct trigger profile unlikely to conflict with any other skill.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents