Review text for blatant signs that it was LLM generated
82
82%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
85%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 well-crafted description that clearly communicates its purpose and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause. The specificity of the problems it addresses (staccato rhythm, AI vocabulary, hollow structure) is strong. The main weakness is trigger term coverage—it could benefit from more natural user phrases like 'sounds like AI' or 'make it more human'.
Suggestions
Add natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'sounds like AI', 'robotic writing', 'make it sound human', 'AI detector', or 'ChatGPT-like'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Detects and fixes LLM-generated writing patterns' with specific examples of what it targets: 'staccato rhythm, AI vocabulary, hollow structure'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Detects and fixes LLM-generated writing patterns') and when ('Use when reviewing longform text') with an explicit trigger clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'LLM-generated', 'writing patterns', and 'longform text', but misses common user phrases like 'AI writing', 'sounds like ChatGPT', 'robotic', 'make it sound human', or 'AI detector'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Has a clear niche focused specifically on detecting and fixing AI-generated writing patterns, which is distinct from general writing or editing skills. The specific focus on 'LLM-generated' patterns creates a unique trigger space. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill effectively identifies LLM writing patterns and provides a clear review workflow with appropriate user checkpoints. Its main weakness is the lack of concrete before/after examples showing how to transform problematic text, which would make the guidance more actionable. The pattern list, while comprehensive, could be more concise through consolidation.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 concrete before/after examples showing how to fix specific patterns (e.g., transform a staccato sentence into flowing prose)
Consolidate similar pattern categories (e.g., merge the various 'contrasting language' examples into a single entry with multiple sub-examples)
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy in the pattern list (e.g., multiple similar examples for contrasting language, staccato sentences). Some consolidation would tighten it without losing clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a clear list of patterns to detect and a review process, but lacks concrete before/after examples showing how to fix each pattern. The guidance is descriptive rather than demonstrating specific transformations. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step review process is clearly sequenced with appropriate checkpoints: read first, identify patterns, draft revisions, verify meaning preserved, then present to user with explanation. Includes validation step (re-read to confirm core message) and user confirmation for material changes. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a skill of this size (~50 lines), the structure is appropriate. Content is organized into a pattern detection list followed by a clear process section. No need for external file references given the scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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