CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ainativedev/aidevcon-2026-ldn

AI Native DevCon 2026 London — all conference sessions as interactive skills

71

Quality

89%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

77%

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

This is a well-crafted retrieval/Q&A skill with clear grounding rules, a concrete example, and thoughtful edge-case handling. Its main strengths are the explicit workflow for looking up and quoting source material and the detailed guidance for handling ambiguous or uncovered topics. Minor weaknesses include slight verbosity in the edge-case section and the inability to verify referenced bundle files.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but some sections are slightly verbose — e.g., the edge-case guidance could be tightened, and some rules repeat similar ideas (rules 2 and 3 both address verbatim quoting vs. fabrication). Overall reasonable but not maximally lean.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides concrete, specific instructions: a clear lookup workflow (outline.md → transcript.md), explicit quoting rules, a worked example with expected output format, and detailed edge-case handling. Claude knows exactly what to do for each type of query.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step lookup process is clearly sequenced (check quotes.md first, then outline.md to locate section, then read transcript.md). Validation is addressed through rules about verifying verbatim accuracy and explicitly noting gaps. For a retrieval/Q&A skill, this is a well-defined workflow with appropriate checkpoints.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references three external files (outline.md, transcript.md, quotes.md) with clear roles, which is good structure. However, no bundle files were provided, so we cannot verify these references exist. The SKILL.md itself is well-organized with clear sections, but the edge-case guidance section is somewhat long and could potentially be split out for a cleaner overview.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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

This is an excellent skill description that clearly defines its scope around a specific talk, lists concrete actions (answering, quoting, explaining, summarizing), and provides rich, explicit trigger guidance. The specificity of the source material and the detailed 'Use when' clause make it both highly discoverable for relevant queries and unlikely to conflict with other skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Answers questions about', 'retrieves verbatim quotes from', 'explains concepts from', and 'summarizes key arguments in'. These are distinct, well-defined capabilities tied to a specific source document.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (answers questions, retrieves quotes, explains concepts, summarizes arguments from a specific talk) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing multiple concrete trigger scenarios.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'AI coding assistants', 'Opus 4.5 moment', 'LLM statelessness', 'context window', 'attention trade-offs', 'choosing the right model', 'Thoughtworks', 'Martin Fowler', 'Birgitta Böckeler', 'AI-assisted software delivery'. These are specific, natural phrases a user would mention.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Extremely distinctive — it's scoped to a single specific talk by a named speaker at a named conference. The trigger terms are highly specific (e.g., 'Opus 4.5 moment', 'Birgitta Böckeler') and would be very unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents