Content
75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-engineered meta-skill body: compact, imperative, self-consistent (it practices the density rules it preaches), with a clear two-track workflow, feedback loops, snapshot safety, and well-signaled one-level-deep references. The main defects are a garbled step ('what it , when it trigger'), a duplicated rule, and three orphaned reference files not indexed in the References section.
Suggestions
Fix the broken text in workflow step 2 ('Capture intent — what it , when it trigger, expected output format?') to read e.g. 'what it does, when it triggers, expected output format'.
De-duplicate the >10-line code-block rule, which appears both under 'Progressive Disclosure' in Content Quality and as 'No Long Code Blocks' in Anti-Patterns — state it once and cross-reference.
Add 'load when' entries for benchmark.md, rubric.md, and tessl-best-practices.md to the References section so all 11 bundle files are navigable from the body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and imperative with no AI-splaining — e.g., 'No Redundant Knowledge: Do NOT explain concepts AI already knows... Focus strictly on project-specific rules' is enforced by the writing itself. It misses the 5 anchor due to minor trimmable redundancy: the >10-line code-block rule appears twice ('Progressive Disclosure: Move code blocks >10 lines to references/' and 'No Long Code Blocks: Blocks >10 lines must be extracted to references/'), and the Description Quality section partially repeats the workflow's description-related steps. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly executable guidance: concrete commands ('cp -r <skill-dir> <workspace>/skill-snapshot/'), specific thresholds ('target ≥80% accuracy', '≤100 lines'), and a defined test protocol ('spawn parallel subagents: one with-skill, one without-skill'). It sits at 4 rather than 5 because some steps are directives without inline specifics ('Evaluate — grade assertions, review benchmark' says what to grade but not how) and step 2 contains broken text ('Capture intent — what it , when it trigger, expected output format?') that impairs copy-ready precision. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear two-path sequence (new skill steps 1–8, existing skill steps 9–15) with real feedback loops — Test → Evaluate → Iterate ('rewrite based on feedback, rerun into next iteration dir'), a pre-edit snapshot guardrail, and an explicit Quality Checklist. It does not reach 5 because checkpoints are named but not all explicit: gating criteria for pass/fail ('grade assertions, review benchmark (pass rate, tokens, time)') and the pressure-test step lack inline validation conditions, deferring them to the eval-workflow reference. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Scored against the actual bundle: the References section lists 8 real files with 'load when' load-condition hints (e.g., 'load when SKILL.md approaches 100 lines'), all one level deep, and in-text links (TEMPLATE.md, web-search-research.md, eval-workflow.md) all resolve to existing files. It falls short of 5 because 3 of the 11 bundle files (benchmark.md, rubric.md, tessl-best-practices.md) are not reachable from the body's navigation — benchmark.md is only mentioned inside eval-workflow.md — leaving discoverability gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |