CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ce-pov

Give a decisive, project-grounded point of view in the subject's own shape: a graded verdict on an external-adoption question, a holistic take on a document, or a position on a user-supplied approach set. Use for a solo POV, a mid-session second opinion, a named-peer cross-check, any request to consult other models or reconcile their opinions, an `oracle` panel, or a correction-cost-gated proactive cross-check offer. Not for findings review (use ce-doc-review), neutral explainers, or generating options (use ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm).

73

Quality

92%

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

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is a well-structured, highly actionable multi-phase workflow with strong validation gates and clean progressive disclosure into real reference files. Its only weakness is verbosity — the gating and grounding rationale recurs across phases and could be consolidated.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated capability-gating and grounding-philosophy statements (they appear in Phase 0, Phase 1, and the Model Tiers section) into a single canonical statement that later phases reference, to cut token cost.

The 'one rule that is the whole moat' section and the Phase 2 grounding gate overlap in framing the project/external floor; consider merging the conceptual rule into method.md and keeping only the operational gate inline.

Tighten the Phase 4 follow-up prose: the computed-next-step, shape-gate, and selection menus repeat similar 'offer one logical continuation and wait' phrasing and could be expressed once with the per-shape exceptions as a compact table.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense and project-specific rather than padded with concept explanation, but the body is long and restates the capability-gating and grounding philosophy across several phases; it could be tightened without losing meaning.

2 / 3

Actionability

Gives concrete executable guidance — a copy-paste scratch-dir bash block, an explicit four-part handoff gate, per-tier scout routing, and named blocking-question primitives per harness — fully actionable rather than descriptive.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced Phase 0–4 flow with explicit validation checkpoints (the grounding gate, mandatory two-source corroboration at Tier 3, the four-part handoff gate) and feedback loops for error recovery and stalemate.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that defers detail to one-level-deep, clearly signaled references (method.md, intake.md, boundaries.md, cross-model-panel.md, report.md, and agent personas), all verified to exist as real files with explicit load-triggers.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 yet specific, naming three concrete POV shapes, a strong set of natural trigger terms, and explicit routing exclusions to sibling skills. It cleanly answers both what the skill does and when to use it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions in the subject's own shape — 'a graded verdict on an external-adoption question, a holistic take on a document, or a position on a user-supplied approach set' — matching the score-3 anchor of several specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (the three POV shapes) and when ('Use for a solo POV, a mid-session second opinion...'), and adds explicit negative triggers, satisfying the 'clearly answers both what AND when' anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural terms users would say — 'solo POV,' 'mid-session second opinion,' 'named-peer cross-check,' 'consult other models,' 'reconcile their opinions,' 'oracle panel' — strong coverage of common variations.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche reinforced by explicit exclusions — 'Not for findings review (use ce-doc-review), neutral explainers, or generating options (use ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm)' — making conflict with sibling skills unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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: 5 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.