CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

common-protocol-enforcement

Enforce Red-Team verification and adversarial protocol audit. Use only when verifying completion, performing self-scans, or checking protocol violations; do not activate for ordinary implementation, configuration, or unit-test requests.

57

Quality

67%

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 ./.github/skills/common/common-protocol-enforcement/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

A compact, single-purpose protocol/audit skill with a reasonable checklist structure, but it suffers from redundant sections, abstract rather than concrete verification steps, and an unused references section.

Suggestions

Merge the redundant "Red Flags", "Rationalization Prevention", and "Anti-Patterns" sections into one consolidated list to remove triplication.

Make the protocol steps concrete and executable — specify how to detect a "Standard Default" (e.g., a concrete search pattern or file check) rather than leaving it as an abstract directive.

Remove the empty "References" header or link it to references/example.md with a clear signal of what it contains.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and bullet-form, but the "Red Flags", "Rationalization Prevention", and "Anti-Patterns" sections restate the same guardrail three different ways, which could be consolidated.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives a checklist of things to look for ("local mocks instead of shared fakes", "hardcoded styles instead of design tokens"), but the main protocol steps are abstract directives like "Search for Standard Defaults" with no concrete command or method.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A numbered 4-step protocol and a Scan/Match/Fix loop are present with an implicit feedback loop, but the validation checkpoints are conceptual rather than concretely specified and the sections overlap without a crisp sequence.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with organized sections, but the "References" header is empty and the bundle references/example.md is only a placeholder not linked from the body; organization is adequate but not clearly navigated.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 strong, well-scoped description with explicit trigger and exclusion guidance and concrete actions. The main weakness is jargon-heavy trigger terms that may not match natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Soften jargon by pairing "Red-Team verification" with natural phrasings users actually say, e.g. "verify the task is done", "self-scan before reporting done".

Add common trigger variations like "check my work", "audit before finishing", or "make sure I didn't skip steps" to broaden natural-language coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "Enforce Red-Team verification", "adversarial protocol audit", "performing self-scans", "checking protocol violations" — rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what (enforce verification/audit) and when, with an explicit "Use only when..." trigger clause plus a "do not activate for..." exclusion.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant terms ("verifying completion", "self-scans", "protocol violations") but leans on jargon like "Red-Team verification" and "adversarial protocol audit" that users may not naturally say, missing common variations.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (protocol/verification auditing) with distinct triggers and an explicit exclusion clause, making wrong-skill activation unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 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

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard
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.