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.
95
95%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
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 files 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 employ when requesting this type of work.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'structure and rewrite docs', names specific files (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, specific file types) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause covering creating, reorganizing, clarifying guidance, reducing sprawl, and fixing stale content. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'README.md', 'CONTRIBUTING.md', 'SECURITY.md', 'frontend repo docs', 'doc sprawl', 'stale commands', 'stale links', 'top-level docs'. These cover common variations of how users would describe documentation tasks for frontend repositories. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Narrowly scoped to frontend repository documentation with specific file types and specific problems (doc sprawl, stale commands/paths/links, user vs contributor guidance). This is distinct enough to avoid conflicts with general documentation or general frontend development skills. | 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 a well-crafted skill that efficiently communicates a clear doc-structuring workflow for frontend repos. It excels at conciseness (no wasted tokens explaining concepts Claude knows), provides highly actionable guidance with concrete commands and verification steps, and properly delegates detailed templates to referenced files. The guardrails section is particularly strong, with specific, testable constraints rather than vague admonitions.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every line serves a purpose—no explanations of what README or CONTRIBUTING files are, no padding about why docs matter. The skill assumes Claude knows markdown, git repos, and doc conventions, and jumps straight to actionable structure. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete bash verification commands, specific file names and paths, exact email addresses to use, specific symlink behavior, and clear rules like 'use repo-relative Markdown links.' The guardrails are specific and testable rather than vague. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 12-step workflow is clearly sequenced from inspection through drafting to verification. Steps 11-12 form an explicit validation/feedback loop (verify → fix → re-verify before stopping), and the concrete bash checks provide a verification checkpoint. This covers the destructive/batch concern since doc rewrites affect multiple files. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a concise overview that appropriately references three separate template/guideline files (readme-guideline.md, contributing-template.md, security-template.md) via clear one-level-deep links. Detailed content is pushed to those references rather than inlined. | 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