CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

ikuzuki/technical-prose-editor

Draft and edit long-form technical writing - blog posts, engineering write-ups, externally published design docs and ADRs, substantial PR descriptions, long LinkedIn or Substack pieces - so it reads like a senior engineer wrote it rather than a model. Removes AI cadence (em-dashes, "X isn't Y. It's Z." pivots, numbered framing, rule-of-three symmetry, closing synthesis, weakening hedges) and replaces it with patterns drawn from working technical writers (Dan Luu, Marc Brooker, Julia Evans, Simon Willison, Patrick McKenzie, Will Larson, Rachel Kroll, Aphyr). Use when the user asks to "draft a blog post", "write up X", "edit this post", "review my draft", "make this less AI", "fix the AI cadence", "this sounds like ChatGPT", "de-slop this", or shares a long-form technical draft and asks for feedback. Not for short chat messages, code comments or marketing copy.

88

1.24x
Quality

94%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

1.24x

2 of 3 eval scenarios. Add 1 more for a full score.

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A well-built instruction-only skill body: actionable contrast examples with quantified rules, a numbered editing workflow with an explicit self-check checklist and a rewrite-before-returning feedback gate, and clean one-level-deep reference offloading with clear when-to-use signals. The only improvement opportunity is trimming the overlap between the Anti-patterns section and the Self-check checklist.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Efficient throughout: no explaining of concepts Claude already knows, dense with specific rules ("at most once per 500 words", "Ranges as '£1.50 to £3.00'"). Not a 5 because the Self-check section restates roughly eight items already covered in 'Anti-patterns: the AI tells' (em-dashes, pivots, 'the takeaway is', corporate-speak, closing synthesis), which is functional duplication that could be tightened or cross-referenced.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance with paired before/after examples throughout: "'In my view, Lambda memory is the wrong place to look for cost savings' beats 'Lambda memory might potentially not be the right place to look'", "'The pipeline costs £1.50 to £3.00 a week, 95% of it the LLM API' is senior prose", and explicit rewrite prescriptions ("Rewrite as one flat sentence stating Z, or one sentence with the contrast inline"). For an instruction-only skill this is copy-paste-ready direction covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The editing workflow is a clear 5-step sequence ("1. Structural read first... 2. Name the shape... 3. Rewrite the opening first... 4. Edit the body, then run the self-check below. 5. Return the edited draft...") culminating in an explicit validation checklist grouped by Structure/Voice/Substance with a feedback gate: "If three or more checks fail, rewrite before returning." This is an explicit validation step plus a fix-and-retry loop. The only soft spot is that drafting-from-scratch is not given its own numbered sequence, but input gathering ("ask for one sample before starting") and the self-check cover it.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The 'Read first' section signals exactly when and in what priority to use each of three one-level-deep references: "references/exemplar-annotated.md: one before-and-after passage... The highest-signal calibration in the skill", "references/shapes.md when picking the structural shape for a post", "references/writers.md when you need to argue from a specific writer's move". All three files exist, contain substantive content, and do not chain into deeper references (the single cross-link in writers.md points to a sibling file).

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

95%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A strong description: it states a clear what, gives an explicit and comprehensive 'Use when' clause with quoted natural trigger phrases (including slang like 'de-slop this'), and closes with scope exclusions that reduce conflict risk. The only minor gap is that the concrete action verbs are limited to 'draft' and 'edit' rather than a broader set of distinct operations.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions with an enumerated scope: "Draft and edit long-form technical writing - blog posts, engineering write-ups, externally published design docs and ADRs, substantial PR descriptions..." and "Removes AI cadence (em-dashes, 'X isn't Y. It's Z.' pivots, numbered framing, rule-of-three symmetry, closing synthesis, weakening hedges)". Not a 5 because the distinct operation verbs are only 'draft' and 'edit'; the rest describes how, so coverage is strong but not comprehensive in the multi-action sense of the top anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Draft and edit long-form technical writing... Removes AI cadence... and replaces it with patterns drawn from working technical writers") and when ("Use when the user asks to 'draft a blog post'... or shares a long-form technical draft and asks for feedback"), plus an explicit exclusion clause ("Not for short chat messages, code comments or marketing copy"). Clearly matches the anchor-5 example structure of concrete 'what' plus concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes literal natural phrasings users would say, including slang variants: "draft a blog post", "write up X", "edit this post", "review my draft", "make this less AI", "fix the AI cadence", "this sounds like ChatGPT", "de-slop this". This is comprehensive synonym coverage for the niche (including informal and derogatory phrasings), matching the top anchor; nothing obvious is missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers ("fix the AI cadence", "de-slop this", "this sounds like ChatGPT") and an explicit not-for boundary ("Not for short chat messages, code comments or marketing copy") that minimizes conflict with adjacent writing/editing skills. Fits the 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' anchor; only a hypothetical generic blog-writing skill could overlap, and the exclusions and AI-cadence framing separate it.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

On this page