putio/frontend-docs
Structure and rewrite docs for frontend repositories, especially README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, and other top-level docs. Use when creating or reorganizing frontend repo docs, clarifying user vs contributor guidance, reducing doc sprawl, or fixing stale commands, paths, and links in top-level docs.
72
90%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
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 skill description that clearly defines its scope (frontend repo documentation), lists specific file types and actions, and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple concrete trigger scenarios. The description is concise yet comprehensive, using third-person voice and natural keywords that users would actually use when requesting this type of work.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'structure and rewrite docs', names specific file types (README.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md), and describes actions like 'reorganizing', 'clarifying user vs contributor guidance', 'reducing doc sprawl', 'fixing stale commands, paths, and links'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (structure and rewrite docs for frontend repositories, especially specific doc files) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause covering creating/reorganizing frontend repo docs, clarifying guidance, reducing sprawl, fixing stale content). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'README.md', 'CONTRIBUTING.md', 'SECURITY.md', 'frontend repo docs', 'top-level docs', 'doc sprawl', 'stale commands', 'stale links'. These cover common variations of how users would describe documentation tasks for frontend repositories. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clearly scoped to frontend repository documentation specifically, with distinct triggers like 'README.md', 'CONTRIBUTING.md', 'SECURITY.md', 'top-level docs', and 'frontend repo'. This niche is narrow enough to avoid conflicts with general documentation or general coding skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-crafted skill with strong actionability and workflow clarity. The numbered workflow with concrete verification commands and a fix-then-reverify loop is excellent. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity in the guardrails section and the inability to verify referenced template files, though the references themselves are well-structured and one-level deep.
Suggestions
Tighten the guardrails section by consolidating related rules (e.g., merge the brand asset, logo, and sibling-repo rules into a single concise guideline) to improve conciseness.
Consider moving put.io-specific branding and organizational rules into a separate reference file (e.g., references/putio-conventions.md) to improve progressive disclosure and keep the main skill focused on the universal doc-structuring workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient and avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows. However, some guardrails are somewhat verbose and could be tightened (e.g., the GitHub Actions artifacts note, the brand asset guidance). A few points feel redundant across workflow and guardrails sections. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete, actionable steps: specific file names to create, specific templates to start from, concrete bash verification commands, explicit rules about symlinks, link labels, and email addresses. The guidance is specific enough to execute without ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced (inspect → identify → read guidelines → draft from templates → place content → verify). Steps 13-14 provide an explicit validation loop with concrete bash checks, and the 'fix and re-verify before stopping' instruction creates a proper feedback loop for catching broken references. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references three external files (readme-guideline.md, contributing-template.md, security-template.md) with clear one-level-deep links, which is good. However, no bundle files were provided to verify these exist, and the guardrails section is quite long and inline — some of the brand-specific and put.io-specific rules could potentially be split into a separate reference. The structure is decent but not optimal. | 2 / 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