CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

common-decision-discipline

Right-size, ground, and gate SDLC decisions with SNC-sized depth, said-vs-assumed write-back, an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review. Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature, design-solution, or system-design-session.

68

Quality

85%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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 an exemplary instruction-only skill: precisely formatted rules, a numbered workflow with validation checkpoints and feedback loops, and a clean one-level-deep reference split that checks out against the actual bundle. The only nit is mild duplication between the Red Flags and Anti-Patterns sections.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and lean with no explanation of known concepts, but the Red Flags and Anti-Patterns sections restate the same rules (e.g. "list three options to look thorough" vs "No padded options: never invent alternatives to reach three"; "approval to publish means deploy" vs "No scope transfer"), which could be merged.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully actionable for a process skill: exact tier thresholds (0-2/3-4/5-6), literal state syntax 'approval: pending | approved(<who>, <YYYY-MM-DD>) | assumed-autonomous', evidence tag formats 'confirmed(<path>)', 'Max 3 per round, each with a recommended default and 2-3 options', the exact reply phrase 'Reply ok or corrections', and copy-paste templates in the reference files.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Numbered sections 1-8 follow execution order with an explicit self-review checklist (placeholders, contradictions, multi-plan scope, two-reading ambiguities), a feedback loop ('Allow one correction round'), and hard gates ('tier=high still blocks pending explicit human sign-off'), matching the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All three referenced files (references/contract-template.md, references/evidence-ledger.md, references/option-card.md) exist, are one level deep, are listed with links in a References section, and hold the templates/detail split out of the ~80-line overview body.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

76%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 states both capability and a precise use-when clause tied to named sibling skills, making it highly complete and mostly distinct. Its main weakness is trigger and capability vocabulary that leans on internal jargon (SNC, said-vs-assumed write-back) rather than natural user-facing phrases.

Suggestions

Fold natural trigger phrases a user would actually say (e.g. 'compare approaches', 'decision brief', 'weigh trade-offs') into the description itself instead of keeping them only in metadata.triggers.

Replace or briefly gloss internal jargon like 'SNC-sized depth' and 'said-vs-assumed write-back' with plainer capability language so the actions are concretely legible to any reader.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ("an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review"), but terms like "SNC-sized depth" and "said-vs-assumed write-back" are internal jargon whose concrete meaning is not self-evident, leaving minor gaps versus the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Right-size, ground, and gate SDLC decisions with... an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review") and when ("Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature, design-solution, or system-design-session") with concrete trigger contexts.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The when-clause names four precise companion skills ("Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature, design-solution, or system-design-session") but the description omits natural user phrases like "compare approaches" or "decision brief" that appear only in the metadata triggers, so common variations are missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Triggering is scoped to four named companion skills, giving a clear niche, but the domain phrasing ("SDLC decisions", "gate decisions") is broad enough to overlap with other planning or approval skills.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard

Path

.agents/skills/common/common-decision-discipline/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.