CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ce-compound

Document a solved problem as a durable repo learning. Use when verified work produced non-obvious reasoning absent from its final code, tests, or existing docs; avoid routine fixes whose artifacts already explain the lesson.

Quality

83%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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-engineered orchestration skill body: lean overview, unambiguous mode detection with explicit failure paths, a clear write boundary, and exemplary progressive disclosure into a real, well-organized bundle. The residual issues are minor — some restatement in Mode Detection and validation details deferred to references.

Suggestions

Consolidate the two Mode Detection paragraphs that both state the non-interactive asks-nothing contract into a single statement of the rule and its consequences

Surface the frontmatter/claims validation as an explicit named checkpoint in the Full Mode step list (or note which reference defines the validate-and-fix loop) so error recovery is visible in the overview

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense, procedural, and project-specific with no padding about concepts Claude already knows, but the Mode Detection section restates the "asks nothing" contract already covered in its own preceding paragraph, and could be tightened.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout — exact invocation grammar, `git rev-parse --show-toplevel`, explicit docs_root resolution/validation rules, and a numbered step list naming the exact reference file to read at each step; most operational detail is deliberately deferred to references, leaving only minor gaps in the body itself.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Full Mode sequence (steps 1-6) is clearly ordered with a precondition gate ("If the counterfactual fails, write nothing and report why"), explicit docs_root validation with stop-on-error, and defined failure exits and terminal signals ("Documentation complete" / "Documentation skipped"); the claims/frontmatter validation loop is referenced rather than given a checkpoint in the body.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview (~80 lines) with content properly split across 13 reference files, 5 scripts, and an asset; every referenced path exists on disk, references are one level deep, and each is clearly signaled at the step that needs it ("Each reference is a required read at the step that names it").

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

82%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: third-person, concise, with an explicit and concrete Use-when clause plus an exclusion condition that sharpens triggering. The only weakness is that it names a single action rather than enumerating the concrete things the skill does.

Suggestions

Enumerate 2-3 concrete actions after the lead sentence, e.g. "writes or updates a learning document under solutions/, validates its frontmatter and claims, and records captured vocabulary"

Add one or two common synonyms for the trigger scenario (e.g. "postmortem", "lessons learned") so users who phrase the need differently still match

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Document a solved problem as a durable repo learning" names the domain precisely but lists only one concrete action; the supporting write/validate/report actions are not enumerated as capabilities.

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly answers what ("Document a solved problem as a durable repo learning") and when, via an explicit "Use when verified work produced non-obvious reasoning absent from its final code, tests, or existing docs" clause with a concrete exclusion condition.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "solved problem", "verified work", "non-obvious reasoning", "final code, tests, or existing docs", and "routine fixes" give good coverage, though common synonyms (postmortem, lessons learned, write-up) are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — capturing durable, non-recoverable reasoning — with distinct triggers, and the exclusion clause ("avoid routine fixes whose artifacts already explain the lesson") actively prevents overlap with routine-fix documentation skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin

Path

skills/ce-compound/SKILL.md

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.