studio
Use WordPress Studio for local WordPress development, preferring MCP and falling back to the Studio CLI when needed.
54
60%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/claude-code/skills/studio/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
57%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
The description identifies a clear niche (WordPress Studio for local development) and distinguishes itself well from other skills, but it lacks specific concrete actions and an explicit 'Use when...' clause. Adding trigger guidance and enumerating key capabilities would significantly improve skill selection accuracy.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'local WordPress site', 'WordPress development', 'wp studio', 'spin up a WordPress site'.
List specific concrete actions the skill supports, such as 'create local WordPress sites, manage plugins and themes, run WP-CLI commands, configure local environments'.
Include common user-facing keyword variations like 'wp', 'local site', 'WordPress setup', 'dev server' to improve trigger term coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (local WordPress development) and mentions two approaches (MCP and Studio CLI), but does not list specific concrete actions like creating sites, managing plugins, running migrations, etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is partially addressed (local WordPress development via MCP/CLI), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or trigger guidance explaining when Claude should select this skill. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'WordPress', 'Studio', 'local WordPress development', 'MCP', and 'CLI', but misses common user-facing variations such as 'wp', 'local site', 'dev environment', 'WordPress setup', or 'theme development'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'WordPress Studio', 'local WordPress development', 'MCP', and 'Studio CLI' creates a clear, distinct niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill has strong workflow clarity with well-defined validation loops and sequencing, particularly around block validation and environment verification. However, it lacks concrete executable examples (no actual command syntax, tool call formats, or expected outputs), which limits actionability. The Ownership section adds meta-information that consumes tokens without directly aiding task execution.
Suggestions
Add concrete examples of MCP tool calls (e.g., exact `site_list` invocation and expected response format) and CLI fallback commands with actual argument syntax to improve actionability.
Trim or remove the 'Ownership' section—it serves as internal documentation about skill boundaries rather than actionable guidance for Claude.
Include a brief example showing the validate_blocks output format (Expected vs Actual) so Claude knows exactly what to look for when repairing block markup.
If supporting files exist (e.g., auditing skill, .mcp.json template), add explicit relative links to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient and avoids explaining basic concepts, but the 'Ownership' section is somewhat verbose and meta—listing what the skill 'owns' adds tokens without directly helping Claude execute tasks. The MCP vs CLI vs file-edit breakdown is useful but could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The workflow provides a clear sequence of actions, but lacks concrete executable examples—no actual CLI commands with arguments, no MCP tool call syntax, no code snippets. Steps like 'run studio site list' and 'use validate_blocks' are named but not shown with exact invocation patterns or expected outputs. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is well-sequenced with 12 numbered steps, includes explicit validation checkpoints (validate_blocks with a fix-and-retry loop in steps 9-10), environment verification first (steps 1-2), and a review loop with screenshots (step 11). The feedback loop for block validation is clearly articulated with error recovery. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references 'auditing' as a handoff target and mentions '.mcp.json' and other skills, but there are no bundle files provided and no explicit links to supporting documentation. The content is reasonably organized with clear sections, but the Ownership section is somewhat monolithic and the lack of any referenced files limits navigation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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.
- Repository
- Automattic/build-with-wordpress
- Commit
1c076c2
- 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.