CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

base/fill-the-gaps

Assumption-first planning and design gap analysis. Use when user is in PLANNING mode, explicitly asks to plan or discuss, asks for a gap analysis / design review / stress-test of a spec or design document, or when agent faces open decisions — including headless tasks where the deliverable is proposals and open questions as files. Instead of interrogating the user, the agent proposes concrete tagged answers in small verify-style rounds (or directly in the output documents when no user is in the loop), surfaces contradictions as questions, and asks only the questions that genuinely fork the design.

78

1.05x
Quality

91%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

56%

1.05x

Average score across 1 eval scenario

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

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.

The body is a well-sequenced, highly actionable instruction-only skill with clear validation checkpoints and feedback loops. Its weaknesses are mild redundancy between the Process and Key Principles sections and a monolithic structure with no progressive disclosure via bundle files.

Suggestions

Collapse or trim the Key Principles section so it cross-references rather than restates the Process steps, removing the conciseness redundancy.

Consider splitting the detailed veto-pass mechanics and Headless Mode into referenced files (e.g. HEADLESS.md, VETO_PASS.md) with one-level-deep links from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Move the worked example blocks (e.g. the **Assumption:** marker sample) into a short examples reference so the core process stays lean.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and free of basic-concept padding, but the Key Principles section restates material already covered in the Process steps (e.g. 'Confirm, then write' reprises steps 7-8; 'Contradictions always surface' reprises the Triage Rule), so it could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is highly concrete and executable: 'Tag each proposal with its tier: safe default / judgment call', 'A round should carry 3-7 proposals', 'Use the exact literal **Assumption:** so markers can be found mechanically (grep)', and named paths like docs/adr/NNNN-slug.md and CONTEXT.md.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 12-step Process is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops — 'if more than ~3 questions survive triage, re-triage', 're-ask it once', 'Implementation starts only after every theme has had its veto pass' — matching the anchor for clear sequence with error-recovery loops.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

At ~155 lines the skill is a single monolithic file with no external references, and content that could plausibly be split (Headless Mode details, the veto-pass mechanics) is inline; sections are well-organized but there is no one-level-deep file disclosure.

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.

The description is strong: it states concrete actions, provides explicit and natural trigger terms, answers both what and when, and occupies a distinctive niche in third-person voice. Its only mild weakness is verbosity, though each clause adds specificity rather than fluff.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names multiple concrete actions — 'proposes concrete tagged answers in small verify-style rounds', 'surfaces contradictions as questions', 'asks only the questions that genuinely fork the design' — rather than vague language, and uses third person ('the agent proposes').

3 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('Assumption-first planning and design gap analysis...proposes concrete tagged answers...surfaces contradictions') and when ('Use when user is in PLANNING mode, explicitly asks to plan or discuss, asks for a gap analysis / design review...').

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It covers natural terms a user would say — 'plan or discuss', 'gap analysis', 'design review', 'stress-test of a spec or design document', 'PLANNING mode' — matching the anchor for good coverage of natural trigger phrasing.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The assumption-first, veto-pass, gap-analysis framing is a clear niche with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with other skills, even if 'plan or discuss' is somewhat broad.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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