CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

one-sentence-test

Test a product, API, utility, or design by stating what it actually does in one sentence. Use when auditing coherence or looking for orphaned surfaces, duplicate verbs, or inert abstractions, not for plain code-comprehension questions.

64

Quality

76%

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 ./.agents/skills/one-sentence-test/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%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.

A well-crafted instruction skill: concrete, sequenced, and free of padding, with strong worked examples. The only room for improvement is tighter trimming and slightly more explicit validation gating.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and focused on a novel technique with no padding about concepts Claude already knows, though the worked examples and reinforcing sections (Common Reveals, Anti-Patterns, Good vs bad) could be trimmed slightly, matching the efficient-with-minor-overexplanation anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill it gives highly concrete guidance: the ordered three reductions with exact sentence templates ("This function ______"), a specific audit checklist, and fully worked examples showing input/output, so the absence of code is not a penalty.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Each application has a clearly sequenced procedure (audit bullets, "Three reductions in order. Don't skip.") with iterative refinement shown in the worked example, but there is no explicit validate-then-proceed gate beyond the success criteria, leaving a minor checkpoint gap.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The content is well organized into clearly signaled sections and references to sibling skills are one level deep and explicitly labeled ("Related skills"), but the ~150-line body is not split despite exceeding the simple-skill threshold, leaving minor organization room.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

A strong description with explicit what/when structure and a useful negative trigger; its main weakness is trigger terms that lean technical rather than matching natural user phrasings.

Suggestions

Add natural-language trigger phrases users actually say, e.g. "what does this actually do" or "is this abstraction earning its keep", alongside the technical terms.

Consider naming the two distinct applications (cohesion audit vs value-add audit) in the description to broaden specificity beyond the single core move.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain ("product, API, utility, or design") and one concrete action ("stating what it actually does in one sentence"), but offers only that single technique rather than a comprehensive set of actions, matching the anchor naming a domain and 1-2 concrete actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Test ... by stating what it actually does in one sentence") and when ("Use when auditing coherence or looking for ... not for plain code-comprehension questions"), with concrete trigger phrases and an explicit exclusion.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The "Use when" clause supplies several triggers ("auditing coherence", "orphaned surfaces", "duplicate verbs", "inert abstractions"), but these lean technical and omit the natural phrasings a user would actually say (e.g. "what does this actually do", "is this useful"), so coverage is partial.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The one-sentence reduction niche is clearly scoped and the explicit negative trigger ("not for plain code-comprehension questions") reduces conflict risk, leaving only minor overlap with general review skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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: 3 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.