CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

visual-plan

Turn ordinary text plans into rich interactive visual plans with diagrams, file maps, annotated code, open questions, and UI/prototype review when useful.

64

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/plugins/agent-native-visual-plans/skills/visual-plan/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is visual-plan in BuilderIO/skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable with a well-sequenced validation-heavy workflow and excellent progressive disclosure to real reference files. Its main weakness is repetition of the never-inline rule and concurrency-fencing guidance across sections, which hurts conciseness.

Suggestions

Consolidate the never-inline / connector-discovery guidance so it is stated once in 'Create A Structured Agent-Native Plan' and only linked from elsewhere rather than restated.

State the expectedUpdatedAt / fresh-get-visual-plan fencing once in Tool Guidance and reference it from Core Workflow steps instead of re-explaining the rule twice.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely efficient and assumes Claude's intelligence, but the never-inline/connector rule and the expectedUpdatedAt fencing are restated across multiple sections, leaving more than minor repetition that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact tool names, concrete patch operations, specific CLI commands, and literal props (renderMode: "design", --wf-* tokens, targetId/placement) cover the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step Core Workflow has explicit validation checkpoints (step 7 re-read after every write) and feedback loops (expectedUpdatedAt fencing, fix-and-revalidate) appropriate for destructive hosted writes.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to six real files (connection.md, canvas.md, document-quality.md, exemplar.md, local-files.md, wireframe.md), each framed as the single source of truth for its topic.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 is specific and distinctive, naming several concrete artifacts and a clear niche, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause so the completeness dimension is capped. Trigger-term coverage is good though not comprehensive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when a plan, wireframe, or UI/prototype review would be better as a reviewable artifact than chat prose').

Broaden trigger terms to include synonyms users naturally say like 'wireframe', 'mockup', 'storyboard', or 'plan review'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions/artifacts ('diagrams, file maps, annotated code, open questions, and UI/prototype review') matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.

5 / 5

Completeness

Clearly states what the skill does, but 'when' is only weakly implied via 'when useful' with no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ('visual plans', 'diagrams', 'file maps', 'UI/prototype review', 'open questions') but missing common synonyms a user would say like 'wireframe', 'mockup', or 'plan'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (visual planning for coding agents) with distinct triggers; minor overlap risk with general planning skills.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (537 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
BuilderIO/agent-native
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.