CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

change-proposal

Present proposed code changes visually before implementing: before/after diffs, ASCII diagrams, comparison tables. Use when: "show me options for this change", "compare approaches", or a multi-file change needs a before/after comparison before editing. Not for planning questions with no concrete code change on the table.

79

Quality

100%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%

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

A tightly written, highly actionable skill body: concrete examples for all three tools, an explicit proposal sequence, and a complexity-based scaling table, all without explaining concepts Claude already knows. Organization is clear with no deep reference nesting.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what a diff or ASCII diagram is, and every section (tools, structure, scaling, good/bad) earns its place rather than padding.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives fully concrete, copy-paste-ready templates: real fenced diff syntax, an explicit ASCII character set, a comparison-table format, and an 'Ask' line template ('Should I proceed with [recommendation], or prefer [alternative]?').

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Proposal Structure lays out a clear 1–5 sequence and the Scaling-by-Complexity table maps scope to what to show; this is a communication skill with no destructive operation, so the missing-validation cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

It is a single, well-organized file with clear section headers and only a one-level reference to writing-voice; no bundle files exist and there is no nested-reference chain.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

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.

A strong, specific description that names concrete tools, gives natural trigger phrases, and draws a clear activation boundary with an explicit negative scope. It fully answers what and when without verbosity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It lists multiple concrete actions — 'before/after diffs, ASCII diagrams, comparison tables' — rather than vague language, matching the top anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

It answers both what (visually presenting proposed code changes before implementing) and when (an explicit 'Use when' clause plus a 'Not for' exclusion), in third person.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes natural user phrases ('show me options for this change', 'compare approaches') that a user would actually say, giving good coverage rather than jargon.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is distinct (visual pre-implementation change proposals) and the explicit 'Not for planning questions with no concrete code change' boundary keeps it from triggering for the wrong skill.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
EpicenterHQ/epicenter
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.