CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

pptx-shell-verify

Verify PowerPoint presentation contents using python-pptx via shell when standard file readers fail

60

Quality

70%

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 ./benchmarks/gdpval/skills/pptx-shell-verify/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

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

The content is highly actionable with a complete, executable verification script and concrete commands, but it carries redundant overview/output blocks and embeds a long script that belongs in a bundle file. The workflow is clear yet lacks an explicit final validation feedback loop.

Suggestions

Move the full verify_pptx.py script into scripts/verify_pptx.py and reference it from the body to improve progressive disclosure and reduce inline tokens.

Remove the separate expected-output JSON example or fold it into a single line, since the script already prints that output.

Add an explicit validation feedback loop in Step 5 (e.g., 'if slide_count or titles do not match expectations, re-run verification after correcting the source file') to make the final checkpoint explicit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill includes a useful executable script but also redundant tokens: a re-shown expected-output JSON block, soft 'Best Practices' guidance, and a 'When to Use' section that could be tightened, so it is mostly efficient rather than lean.

2 / 3

Actionability

Quotes the complete executable verify_pptx.py script with real imports and JSON output plus concrete shell commands ('pip install python-pptx', 'python verify_pptx.py path/to/presentation.pptx') that are copy-paste ready.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced with conditional branches ('If this fails ... proceed to Step 2'), but Step 5 lists uses ('Confirm', 'Verify', 'Validate') rather than an explicit compare-expected-vs-actual re-run loop, leaving verification checkpoints implicit.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized (When to Use, Prerequisites, Steps, Troubleshooting), but the ~40-line full Python script is inline content that would be better split into a scripts/ bundle file rather than embedded in the overview.

2 / 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.

The description is concrete and third-person with an explicit when-trigger, making it complete and distinctive, but it lists only one action and omits common file-extension/slide keywords. Tightening specificity and adding natural terms like .pptx or slides would raise it.

Suggestions

Add a few more concrete actions (e.g., 'count slides, extract titles, inspect shapes') to move specificity from a single verb to a list of capabilities.

Include common trigger terms users would actually say, such as '.pptx', 'slides', 'deck', or 'presentation structure'.

Consider broadening the when-clause beyond 'when standard file readers fail' to include user-language triggers like 'when you need to verify a presentation's structure'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes "Verify PowerPoint presentation contents", "using python-pptx", "via shell" name a concrete domain and mechanism but only a single action verb rather than the multiple specific actions the top anchor requires.

2 / 3

Completeness

Quotes "Verify PowerPoint presentation contents using python-pptx via shell" answer what, and "when standard file readers fail" provides an explicit when-trigger, satisfying both what and when.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes "PowerPoint" and "presentation contents" are natural user terms, but common variations like ".pptx", "slides", or "deck" are missing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes "PowerPoint presentation contents ... via shell when standard file readers fail" define a clear niche with a distinct fallback trigger unlikely to conflict with general office/PDF skills.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
HKUDS/OpenSpace
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.