CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ce-explain

Explain how and why something has its current shape, or what happened over a window of work, grounded in evidence. Use when the user asks for an explanation. Use ce-pov for a judgment or recommendation.

66

Quality

81%

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-architected skill body: lean overview, executable scratch-root setup, a clearly sequenced four-phase flow with validation and fallbacks, and clean one-level-deep reference navigation. The only ceiling is that some guidance is procedural rather than copy-paste code and the validate loop is implicit rather than a named checklist.

Suggestions

Make the validate->fix->retry loop explicit (e.g., a short 'If grounding finds a disputed claim: re-check source -> correct -> re-verify' checklist) to push workflow_clarity to 5.

Move the ce-docs-root validation rules into a reference file and keep a one-line pointer in SKILL.md to tighten conciseness.

Add a small concrete dispatch prompt template for work-recap-scout so the recap path is copy-paste-ready, not just described.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and pushes detail into references rather than re-explaining basics, with only minor blocks (the inlined docs-root validation rules) that could arguably live in a reference file.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides a fully executable scratch-root bash block, concrete per-phase file reads, and explicit decision rules (empty range/empty window handling); subagent dispatch is inherently prompt-shaped so it stops just short of copy-paste-ready code for every case.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-phase sequence with real validation checkpoints (scratch-root safety checks, 'check every factual claim against its source', dispatch-failure fallback), missing only the explicit validate->fix->retry checklist form that defines the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a clean overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references (orchestration, intake, explainer-html, explainer-markdown, check-in, destinations, agents/work-recap-scout) — all real files — and content is appropriately split across them.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 tight, third-person description that answers both what and when with an explicit trigger clause and a clear boundary against the sibling ce-pov skill. It is specific and well-scoped, just slightly less concrete in its action vocabulary than the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions ('Explain how and why something has its current shape, or what happened over a window of work, grounded in evidence'), but the actions stay slightly more abstract than the 'extract text, fill forms' level of the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (explain how and why, grounded in evidence) and 'when' ('Use when the user asks for an explanation'), matching the anchor that requires concrete trigger phrases for both.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes the natural trigger phrase 'Use when the user asks for an explanation' plus the redirect 'Use ce-pov for a judgment or recommendation', giving good keyword coverage, though common phrasings like 'why does X work this way' are not surfaced.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Use ce-pov for a judgment or recommendation' boundary carves a distinct niche and keeps overlap risk low, but 'asks for an explanation' still brushes against adjacent skills, so it is not fully minimal-conflict like the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin
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.