CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cw-mom

Reads your writing from a loving, supportive, but not-quite-getting-it perspective. Surfaces where you've lost the general reader.

Quality

66%

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 ./skills/cw-mom/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 body is a well-organized, actionable persona skill with a concrete output template and diagnostic framework, and it appropriately avoids external references. Its main weaknesses are mild redundancy across sections and the absence of a worked example.

Suggestions

Collapse the 'Use this when' list in Purpose and the 'When to Use This' section into a single trigger list to remove redundancy.

Add one short worked example (a sample passage plus the resulting 'Mom Read' output) so the format and diagnostic stance are unambiguous.

Remove or populate the empty Lessons section so it does not consume tokens as a placeholder.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and never explains basics Claude already knows, but it duplicates trigger guidance (Purpose 'Use this when' vs 'When to Use This'), restates the persona across 'Who Is Mom' and 'Principles', and carries an empty Lessons placeholder, so it could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill — a copy-paste Output Format template, a behavior-to-meaning diagnostic table, and a four-question Mom Test — but lacks a worked example showing an input and the resulting Mom read, leaving a minor gap.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The single, non-destructive task (read text, apply the Mom Test, emit the formatted critique) is unambiguous, but the flow from diagnostic to output is implied across separate sections rather than given as one explicit numbered sequence, so it falls just below the simple-skill 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and is organized into clear, well-labeled sections with no nested references; it is well-structured with only minor organization gaps from the redundant sections, fitting the 'good structure' anchor.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 conveys a clear, distinctive persona and a concrete purpose, but it relies on second-person voice and omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which cap specificity and completeness. Natural trigger keywords users would actually type are thin.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person (e.g., 'Reads writing from a supportive, non-expert perspective and surfaces where the general reader is lost') to avoid the second-person specificity penalty.

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when checking whether a piece is too jargon-heavy or insider for a general audience, or when you want a non-expert read of your writing.'

Surface natural user keywords ('mom', 'accessible', 'jargon', 'insider', 'general audience') so the description matches phrases users actually say.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and two concrete actions ('Reads your writing', 'Surfaces where you've lost the general reader'), which sits at anchor 3, but the description uses second-person voice ('your writing', 'you've lost') which the rubric penalizes by reducing specificity by 1.

2 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' but no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the rubric caps completeness at 3 when trigger guidance is missing, and the 'when' is only weakly implied by 'where you've lost the general reader'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains some relevant keywords ('writing', 'general reader') but misses the natural phrases a user would actually say ('mom', 'accessible', 'jargon', 'too technical'), matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'loving, supportive, not-quite-getting-it' persona is a distinct niche unlikely to trigger the wrong skill, with only minor overlap risk against general 'make my writing clearer' skills.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

EveryInc/compound-writing

Path

skills/cw-mom/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.