ce-doc-review

Review requirements, plans, or specs with role-specific lenses. Use when the user wants to improve an existing planning document.

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/ce-doc-review/SKILL.md

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 skill body is a well-structured, validation-gated orchestration workflow that defers detail to real one-level reference files and includes explicit checkpoints, feedback loops, and a completion checklist. It is strong across the board with only minor conciseness and actionability trimming possible.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence with no basic-concept padding, but a few prescriptive inline blocks (e.g., the CE artifact-root validation rules) could be tightened, fitting efficient-with-minor-trims rather than perfectly lean.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and executable: specific file paths ("Read references/modes.md"), explicit gates ("dispatch no personas"), and "Seed each one with the full content of its references/personas/<reviewer-name>.md"; minor gaps remain since it is orchestration guidance rather than copy-paste code.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Phases 1-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ("Verify before any dispatch"), feedback loops (capacity-rejection backpressure, reviewer-failure handling named in Coverage), and a "Done when" checklist, matching the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation and checklists.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview that defers detail to clearly signaled, one-level-deep references (modes.md, document-intake.md, dispatch.md, synthesis-and-presentation.md, personas/*.md), and the listed bundle files all exist on disk, matching the anchor for clear overview with well-signaled one-level references.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 concise, third-person, and answers both what and when with a clear trigger, but its action list is thin and it omits file-extension/synonym triggers. It is distinct and well-targeted with minor specificity gaps.

Suggestions

Add one or two more concrete actions beyond "review" (e.g., "surface gaps, flag risks, and route fixes") to lift specificity toward 5.

Broaden the trigger to cover creation as well as improvement, and include natural file extensions (e.g., ".md planning docs") for stronger trigger-term coverage.

Keep the explicit "Use when" clause but pair it with a second trigger phrasing users would actually say (e.g., "when reviewing a spec before sign-off").

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Review requirements, plans, or specs with role-specific lenses" names the domain and one concrete action (review) plus a method (role-specific lenses), but stops short of listing several specific actions, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	It states both the "what" (review with role-specific lenses) and an explicit "Use when the user wants to improve an existing planning document" clause; the "when" is clear but scoped only to improvement, slightly less explicit than a 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural user phrasings are present ("requirements, plans, or specs", "improve an existing planning document") giving good keyword coverage, but it lacks synonyms and file-extension variants that would push it to 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Role-specific lenses" applied to requirements/plans/specs is a clear niche with distinct triggers and only minor overlap risk with general review or writing skills, fitting mostly distinct rather than fully minimal-conflict.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
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-doc-review/SKILL.md
Commit: 26bf5b1

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.