Generate, validate, and render JSCAD v2 CAD scripts from natural language prompts
94
94%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
97%
1.64xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
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 a strong skill description that clearly defines its capabilities (generating, validating, and rendering JSCAD v2 CAD scripts), provides explicit trigger guidance with a comprehensive list of natural user phrases, and occupies a distinct niche. The mention of 'DDD and swamp extension model design principles' is somewhat internal/technical jargon that doesn't help with skill selection, but it doesn't detract significantly. The description uses proper third-person voice throughout.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Generate, validate, and render JSCAD v2 CAD scripts', 'fix a JSCAD script', 'validate an STL output'. Also mentions specific design principles (DDD, swamp extension model). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (generate, validate, render JSCAD v2 CAD scripts) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause with specific scenarios plus a 'Triggers on:' list of keywords). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'generate cad', 'create 3d model', 'jscad script', 'make a part', 'design a', 'cad model', 'generate stl', 'fix jscad', 'validate stl', 'render model', 'text to cad'. These cover both technical and casual phrasings. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very distinct niche: JSCAD v2 CAD scripting, STL validation, and 3D model generation. The specific technology (JSCAD) and file format (STL) references make it highly unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured skill that provides highly actionable guidance for JSCAD code generation with clear workflow steps, validation checkpoints, and retry logic. The progressive disclosure is excellent with appropriate references to detailed docs. Minor verbosity in the examples and modeling guidelines prevents a perfect conciseness score, but overall the content is well-tailored to its domain-specific constraints.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient and domain-specific, but some sections are slightly verbose — e.g., the Named Coordinates Rule example is lengthy, and the handle modeling guidance could be tighter. The injected scope list and mandatory rules are well-justified since Claude wouldn't know these project-specific constraints. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable bash commands for each workflow step, concrete YAML file format, specific JSCAD code examples with correct/incorrect patterns, and exact CLI invocations. The mandatory script rules are precise and copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced (generate → render → validate → copy → report) with an explicit retry loop (max 3 attempts), validation checkpoints at the STL validation step, and clear error recovery guidance (read issues[], retry with error context). The ASCII diagram reinforces the flow. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill provides a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to detailed materials: jscad-v2-api.md, geometry-positioning.md, feature-based-modeling.md, and reverse-engineering.md. Core content stays inline while advanced/reference material is appropriately linked. | 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents