saadshahd/intent
Turn rough ideas into clear work orders before planning or building. Use when request is vague like "add a button", "make it better", "fix the thing". Triggers on ambiguous or underspecified requests. Produces a brief with scope, acceptance criteria, and stop conditions.
100
100%
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, well-crafted skill description that clearly communicates its purpose, triggers, and outputs. It uses third person voice, provides concrete examples of when it should activate, and specifies the deliverable format. The inclusion of natural user phrases as trigger examples is particularly effective for skill selection.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Turn rough ideas into clear work orders', 'Produces a brief with scope, acceptance criteria, and stop conditions.' These are concrete, well-defined outputs and actions. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Turn rough ideas into clear work orders', 'Produces a brief with scope, acceptance criteria, and stop conditions') and when ('Use when request is vague like...', 'Triggers on ambiguous or underspecified requests') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent natural trigger terms that users would actually say: 'add a button', 'make it better', 'fix the thing', plus meta-terms like 'vague', 'ambiguous', 'underspecified'. These closely match real user language patterns. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Occupies a clear niche as a pre-planning clarification/scoping skill. The trigger condition (vague/ambiguous requests) and output (work order brief) are distinct from implementation, planning, or coding skills, making conflicts unlikely. | 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 excellent skill that is concise, highly actionable, and well-structured. It provides a clear multi-step workflow with explicit validation gates, branching logic, and concrete constraints (question limits, word counts, tool names). The boundaries section cleanly delineates scope without over-explaining.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Every sentence carries weight. No unnecessary explanations of what clarification is or why it matters beyond the opening principle. The workflow steps are terse but complete, and the brief structure is a compact template rather than verbose description. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable with specific tool usage (AskUserQuestion, multiSelect), concrete constraints (≤35 words, max 3 questions per round, max 8 rounds), and a clear output structure with named sections. The guidance is specific enough to execute without ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints: the unknowns list check in Step 2, the echo confirmation in Step 3 with branching paths, and the assumption review gate in Step 4 before brief generation. Feedback loops are well-defined (loop in Step 2, revise-and-re-echo in Step 3). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a skill of this size (~50 lines) with no need for external references, the content is well-organized with clear section headers, a logical flow from workflow to boundaries, and appropriate density. No monolithic walls of text or unnecessary nesting. | 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