arn-spark-stress-prfaq
This skill should be used when the user says "prfaq", "pr faq", "pr/faq", "press release stress test", "stress prfaq", "amazon pr faq method", "test the pitch with a pr/faq", "validate concept through pr/faq", "critique press release", "pr faq stress test", "will this marketing story hold up", or wants to stress-test a product concept by drafting a compelling press release and FAQ, then adversarially critiquing it to find where the concept cracks under scrutiny. Produces a PR/FAQ report with the full draft, adversarial questions, crack point analysis, and recommended concept updates.
90
88%
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 description that excels across all dimensions. It provides extensive trigger terms covering many natural user phrasings, clearly describes both what the skill does and when to use it, and occupies a very distinct niche. The only minor concern is that the long list of trigger phrases makes it slightly verbose, but this doesn't detract from its effectiveness.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: drafting a press release and FAQ, adversarially critiquing it, finding crack points, and producing a report with full draft, adversarial questions, crack point analysis, and recommended concept updates. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (stress-test a product concept by drafting a PR/FAQ then adversarially critiquing it, producing a report with draft, adversarial questions, crack point analysis, and recommendations) and 'when' (explicit trigger phrases and use-case description at the start). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including many variations users would actually say: 'prfaq', 'pr faq', 'pr/faq', 'press release stress test', 'stress prfaq', 'amazon pr faq method', 'critique press release', 'will this marketing story hold up', and more. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche — the PR/FAQ stress-testing methodology is a very specific framework (Amazon-style), and the extensive list of unique trigger terms like 'prfaq', 'crack point analysis', and 'amazon pr faq method' make it unlikely to conflict with other 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, highly actionable skill with excellent workflow clarity — the two-phase draft/critique process is clearly sequenced with quality gates, retry logic, and error handling at each step. The main weakness is moderate verbosity: the rationale for separate invocations is repeated in multiple places, and some sections could be tightened. Progressive disclosure is reasonable with external references but the main file carries substantial inline detail.
Suggestions
Consolidate the explanation of why separate invocations matter into a single location (e.g., the Constraints section) and reference it elsewhere instead of repeating it in the intro, Step 4, and Error Handling.
Consider moving the detailed quality check criteria and retry prompts for Steps 3 and 4 into a reference file, keeping only the high-level check description inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly detailed and well-structured, but includes some unnecessary verbosity — e.g., explaining why separate invocations matter multiple times (in the intro, Step 4, Constraints, and Error Handling), and the prerequisite table's 'Fallback' column restates what's implicit. Some sections could be tightened without losing clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, executable guidance: exact file paths, specific word counts, structured agent invocation formats with delimited sections, quality check criteria, retry instructions with specific wording, and a detailed summary template. Every step tells Claude exactly what to do. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit quality checks after both draft and critique phases, retry logic with specific criteria for when output is insufficient, error handling with user-facing fallback options, and a context-leak detection mechanism. Validation checkpoints are thorough and well-placed. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (prfaq-workflow.md, prfaq-report-template.md) and an agent (arn-spark-marketing-pm), which is good progressive disclosure. However, no bundle files were provided to verify these references exist, and the SKILL.md itself is quite long (~180 lines) with substantial inline detail that could potentially be offloaded to reference files. The Agent Invocation Guide table is a nice navigation aid. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- AppsVortex/arness
- Commit
1fe948f
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.