CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

content-audit

Audit GDD-specified content counts against implemented content. Identifies what's planned vs built.

53

Quality

61%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/content-audit/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

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

The content is highly actionable with concrete commands and a clear phased workflow, but it is somewhat verbose and lacks an explicit verification step for this batch read operation. Splitting the output template into a reference file would also improve progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Add a verification/sanity-check step in Phase 2 (e.g. 'If a Grep/Glob returns zero matches, note the system as NOT STARTED and continue' or 'confirm design/gdd/systems-index.md exists before iterating') to lift workflow clarity above the batch cap.

Move the long output template block into a references/ file (e.g. REPORT_TEMPLATE.md) and link to it from Phase 4 to improve progressive disclosure and conciseness.

Tighten the repeated caveats — the 'counts are approximations' note appears in both Phase 2 and the template; state it once.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the inline output template (~40 lines) and some repeated prose (caveats restated in multiple phases) could be tightened. Not padded with basics, yet not maximally lean — matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor rather than 'every token earns its place'.

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready Grep/Glob patterns with exact glob strings, explicit status thresholds (50–99% = IN PROGRESS, etc.), and a concrete output template. This matches the 'fully executable code/commands; specific examples; copy-paste ready' anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The five phases are clearly sequenced with status categories, priority flags, and a permission checkpoint before writing, but this is a batch operation across many files and lacks an explicit verification/sanity-check step (e.g. handle empty Grep results, confirm a GDD file exists), which caps workflow clarity at 2 per the batch-operation guideline.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets are absent) and the skill is self-contained with well-organized phase sections, but everything — including the large output template — is inline in one ~195-line file with no one-level-deep references, matching the 'well-organized but monolithic / inline content that could be separate' anchor rather than the 'clear overview with signaled references' anchor.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

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 accurately conveys the skill's purpose and occupies a distinct niche, but it omits explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and leans on domain jargon ('GDD') over natural user language. Adding a Use-when clause would lift the completeness and trigger-term dimensions.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when ...' clause naming natural triggers, e.g. 'Use when auditing game content, checking what's built vs planned, or reviewing implementation gaps against design docs.'

Replace or gloss the jargon 'GDD-specified' with plain language a user would actually say (e.g. 'design-doc-specified') to improve trigger-term quality.

Add one or two more concrete actions to the capability list (e.g. 'produces a gap table and HIGH PRIORITY flags, writes a report to docs/') to raise specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain and a couple of concrete actions — 'Audit GDD-specified content counts against implemented content' and 'Identifies what's planned vs built' — but does not enumerate the fuller set of actions (gap report, status flags, file output). Not a comprehensive list, so it sits at the 'some actions' anchor rather than the 'multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It clearly answers the 'what' (audit content counts, identify planned vs built) but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should invoke it, which caps completeness at 2 per the rubric guidelines.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant terms like 'content counts', 'planned vs built', and 'implemented content' are present, but 'GDD-specified' is domain jargon and common natural variations a user might say ('content audit', 'what's built vs planned', 'gap report') are missing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — auditing game-design-doc content counts against implementation — with distinct triggers unlikely to collide with general-purpose skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 11 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
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.