CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cw-objections

Surfaces counterarguments, objections, and "yeah buts" a reader might have to your argument. Helps you anticipate and address resistance before it derails the piece.

Quality

74%

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-objections/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 lean, well-structured instruction-only skill with concrete steps, a useful objection typology, and a ready-to-use output template; it stops short of top marks mainly due to the absence of a worked end-to-end example and the empty Lessons placeholder.

Suggestions

Add one fully worked example applying the skill to a short sample argument, showing the completed output template, to lift actionability toward 5.

Tighten or relocate the prose in 'The Outsider Stance' (e.g., fold its calibration point into the Purpose or Principles section) to reduce redundancy and improve conciseness.

Either populate the 'Lessons' section with real captured lessons or remove the placeholder line so the structure has no empty stub.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely efficient—using a table for objection types, a terse 5-step process, and a copy-paste output template—without explaining concepts Claude already knows; the only trimmable excess is the somewhat prose-heavy 'Outsider Stance' section and minor redundancy between sections, which keeps it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and specific for an instruction-only skill: a 5-step procedure, an objection typology with examples, and a copy-paste output template; it falls short of a 5 only because there is no fully worked end-to-end example applying the skill to a real argument.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

'How This Skill Works' gives a clearly sequenced 5-step process (identify claims → find assumptions → surface objections → rate severity → suggest responses); this is an analysis skill, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops to justify a 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The file is well-organized with clear, descriptive section headers and no external references needed (no bundle files exist), but at ~110 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception and includes an empty 'Lessons' placeholder, leaving a minor organization gap below a 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 clearly conveys what the skill does and uses natural, varied trigger terms, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' clause and only lists 1-2 concrete actions, capping completeness and specificity at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming triggering situations (e.g., 'Use when making an argument and wanting to anticipate pushback or counterarguments').

Broaden concrete actions beyond 'Surfaces' and 'anticipate and address' to list a few more specific capabilities (e.g., rank by severity, suggest responses) to lift specificity.

Include a couple more natural synonyms users might say ('devil's advocate', 'pushback') to round out trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (counterarguments, objections, 'yeah buts') and a couple of concrete actions ('Surfaces', 'anticipate and address resistance'), matching the score-3 anchor of naming the domain plus 1-2 actions without comprehensive coverage; it does not list several specific actions to reach a 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is stated clearly ('Surfaces counterarguments...'), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 3 with 'when' only weakly implied.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing terms are present and varied—'counterarguments', 'objections', 'yeah buts', 'resistance'—giving good keyword coverage with synonyms, though a few natural phrasings like 'devil's advocate' or 'pushback' are absent, keeping it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (counterarguments to an argument) that is mostly distinct from generic skills, with only minor overlap risk against closely related critique skills such as a 'nemesis' style attack-the-craft skill.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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-objections/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.