paker-it/devcon-hack-coach
Coaches you through scoping, shipping, and pitching a 24-hour hackathon project at AI Native DevCon (Tessl, London, 1–2 June 2026). Spec-first, track-aware, demo-obsessed. Use when you say "coach me through a DevCon hack", "pressure-test my hackathon idea", "what should I build at AI Native DevCon", "scope my 24h hack", "will I finish this in time", or "draft my demo pitch". Refuses to let you write code before a one-page spec exists.
100
100%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.69xAverage score across 5 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, well-crafted description that clearly defines a narrow niche (hackathon coaching for a specific event), lists concrete actions, and provides explicit trigger phrases. The only minor issue is the use of second person ('Coaches you', 'Refuses to let you'), which per the rubric guidelines should be penalized, but the overall quality of specificity, triggers, and completeness is excellent.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple concrete actions: scoping, shipping, pitching a hackathon project, pressure-testing ideas, drafting demo pitches, enforcing spec-first workflow. The phrase 'Refuses to let you write code before a one-page spec exists' is a distinctive behavioral detail. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (coaches through scoping, shipping, pitching a 24-hour hackathon project) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause with six specific trigger phrases). Both dimensions are well-covered. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes highly natural trigger phrases users would actually say: 'coach me through a DevCon hack', 'pressure-test my hackathon idea', 'scope my 24h hack', 'will I finish this in time', 'draft my demo pitch'. These cover multiple natural variations of how someone would invoke this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Extremely niche: specific to a named event (AI Native DevCon, Tessl, London, 1–2 June 2026), a specific format (24-hour hackathon), and a specific methodology (spec-first, track-aware, demo-obsessed). Very unlikely to conflict with any other skill. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an exceptionally well-crafted skill. It's a masterclass in coaching-style instruction: tight voice, concrete exit gates, explicit anti-patterns, and a clear 4-phase workflow with validation loops. The progressive disclosure is textbook — references are loaded just-in-time and clearly signaled. The only minor observation is that the skill is moderately long, but every section justifies its presence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every section earns its place. No padding, no explaining what hackathons are, no teaching Claude basic concepts. The voice examples are tight and functional. The anti-patterns section is crisp and actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Extremely concrete: specific questions to ask per turn, exact exit gates per phase, a checkpoint table with hours and deliverables, word-count constraints on pitch sentences, and five specific judge questions. This is a fully executable coaching protocol despite being instruction-only (no code needed). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Four phases with explicit exit gates, clear sequencing ('never skip ahead'), loop-back instructions when gates aren't met (e.g., 'go back to Phase 2 and cut'), and validation at every step. The checkpoint table in Phase 3 adds time-bound verification. The terminal state is clearly defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clean overview in the main file with five well-signaled one-level-deep references loaded only when their phase starts. Content is appropriately split between the coaching workflow (inline) and templates/examples (referenced files). | 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents