CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sdd-design

Create the SDD technical design and architecture approach. Trigger: orchestrator launches design for a change.

57

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 ./internal/assets/skills/sdd-design/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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

A well-structured, actionable SDD design-phase executor with a clear numbered workflow and good progressive disclosure via a single real conditional reference. It is held back by redundancy around the threat matrix, delegation of core persistence mechanics to an external shared file, and the absence of an output-validation checkpoint before return.

Suggestions

Add an explicit pre-return verification step (e.g., confirm the design addresses every proposal requirement and persistence succeeded) to close the output-validation gap and lift workflow clarity.

Inline the essential retrieval/persistence contract or a minimal concrete example of it so the skill is executable without relying solely on skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md.

Consolidate the threat-matrix guidance to a single authoritative statement plus a pointer, removing the triple repetition to improve token efficiency.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and domain-specific with no basic-concept padding, but the threat-matrix requirement is stated three times (Step 2a, the format template, and Rules) and the orchestrator-gate/executor-override boilerplate could be tightened, matching the level-2 anchor of mostly-efficient-but-could-tighten rather than the every-token-earns-its-place level 3.

2 / 3

Actionability

Concrete numbered steps, explicit paths, a copy-paste design-doc template, and explicit artifact keys are present, but the core retrieval/persistence mechanics are delegated to external skills/_shared/sdd-phase-common.md (Sections A-D) with no inline detail and no worked example, fitting level 2's concrete-but-incomplete anchor.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps are clearly sequenced (1-5) with some explicit checkpoints (MANDATORY persistence, 800-word size budget, threat-matrix applicability marking), but there is no checkpoint verifying the produced design is complete/correct before return and no error-recovery feedback loop, leaving output validation implicit per the level-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A clear overview with well-organized sections and a verified one-level-deep reference (references/threat-matrix.md, confirmed present) that is conditionally loaded and clearly signaled, with no nested references, matching the level-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

75%

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 concise, third-person description that explicitly covers both what the skill does and when it fires via an explicit trigger clause, with a distinct SDD design-phase niche. Its main weakness is trigger-term naturalness — the trigger is internal orchestration jargon rather than language a user would naturally say.

Suggestions

Add user-natural trigger terms (e.g., "technical design", "architecture approach", "design a change") alongside the internal orchestrator trigger so the skill is discoverable via natural language.

Expand the action list beyond a single compound verb to name the concrete outputs produced (e.g., "document architecture decisions, data flow, file changes, and a testing strategy").

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("SDD technical design and architecture approach") and a concrete action ("Create"), but states a single compound action rather than listing multiple distinct concrete actions as the level-3 anchor requires; it is not vague, so it clears level 1.

2 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly states what ("Create the SDD technical design and architecture approach") and when via an explicit trigger clause ("Trigger: orchestrator launches design for a change"), an equivalent of 'Use when…', so it is not capped at 2 and matches the level-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger ("orchestrator launches design for a change") supplies relevant domain keywords ("design", "change") but is internal-process jargon rather than natural user language and omits common variations, fitting the level-2 anchor rather than the natural-term coverage of level 3.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"SDD technical design and architecture approach" carves out a distinct design-phase niche differentiated from sibling spec/tasks phases, with a phase-specific trigger, matching the clear-niche level-3 anchor despite shared "orchestrator/change" template wording.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai
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.