Content
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a reasonable high-level workflow for investigating codebase problems and creating/finding tessl tiles, with clear phasing and decision points. However, it suffers from moderate verbosity, limited concrete executable guidance (especially in Phases 1 and 3 which are largely conversational or delegated), and lacks error recovery feedback loops. The heavy delegation to tile-creator in Phase 3 means the skill is incomplete on its own for the creation path.
Suggestions
Add error handling and feedback loops for key operations — what should happen if `tessl search` returns no results or errors, if `tessl install` fails, or if `tessl status` shows unexpected state?
Trim the explanatory preamble about tile types (rules, docs, skills) — this context is better suited for the tile-creator skill itself and wastes tokens here since Claude can infer this from usage.
Make Phase 1 more actionable by providing a concrete interview template or checklist format rather than prose descriptions of what to ask.
Add a concrete example of a complete workflow execution (e.g., 'User reports Drizzle migration issues → search queries → found tile → install → verify') to make the end-to-end process tangible.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., defining what steering rules, docs, and skills are — Claude likely knows this from context). The phase descriptions could be tighter, and some bullet points restate obvious points. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear multi-phase process with some concrete commands (tessl install, tessl status), but Phase 1 is entirely conversational guidance rather than executable steps, and Phase 3 delegates entirely to another skill (tile-creator) rather than providing concrete authoring instructions. Key details about MCP tool invocation are vague. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four phases are clearly sequenced and logically ordered, with decision points (install existing vs. create new). However, validation is minimal — only Phase 4 has a verification step, and there are no feedback loops for error recovery (e.g., what if tessl search fails, what if install fails, what if tile-creator produces incorrect output). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized into phases with clear headers, but it's somewhat monolithic — the detailed search evaluation criteria and interview questions could be referenced separately. The delegation to tile-creator in Phase 3 is a form of progressive disclosure but feels abrupt rather than well-signaled with context about what to expect. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |