CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

critique

Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building

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 ./plugins/reflexion/skills/critique/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 a well-sequenced, highly actionable orchestration guide with complete judge prompts and clear phases, but it is verbose and keeps large reusable prompt templates inline rather than splitting them into referenced files.

Suggestions

Move each of the three judge prompt templates into separate reference files (e.g., references/requirements-validator.md) and link to them from the body to improve progressive disclosure and reduce inline bulk.

Trim the context section's explanations of Multi-Agent Debate / LLM-as-a-Judge / CoVe, which Claude already knows, down to a one-line note that the pattern is in use.

Condense the ~150-line report template by collapsing the repeated placeholder subsections into a compact skeleton, keeping only the structural markers that drive the output.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The context section explains patterns Claude already knows (Multi-Agent Debate, LLM-as-a-Judge, Chain-of-Verification) and the ~150-line emoji placeholder report template is padded, but most prose is purposeful orchestration guidance, fitting the mostly-efficient-but-could-be-tightened anchor at 3 rather than the noticeably-verbose anchor at 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

It provides full copy-paste judge prompt templates, an explicit Task tool invocation ('subagent_type="general-purpose"'), and concrete usage commands, which is mostly-executable guidance with only placeholder-filling gaps, matching the score-4 anchor and falling short of the fully-copy-paste-ready bar at 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Four phases are clearly sequenced with numbered steps, a user-confirmation checkpoint in Phase 1, and debate/CoVe feedback loops in Phases 2-3; because the command is report-only and non-destructive the destructive-cap does not apply, fitting the clear-sequence-with-most-checkpoints anchor at 4 rather than the explicit-checklist bar at 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

It is a single 470-line file with no bundle references, and the three large judge prompts (~50 lines each) are inlined where they could live in separate reference files, matching the some-structure-but-content-that-should-be-separate-is-inline anchor at 3.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 conveys what the skill does but omits any explicit "when to use" trigger guidance, capping completeness and limiting trigger-term quality. It is reasonably distinct but would benefit from natural user-facing trigger phrases.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a critique, code review, or multi-perspective assessment of completed work').

Replace abstract mechanism terms ('specialized judges', 'consensus building') with natural language a user would say, such as 'critique', 'review', and 'feedback'.

Name a couple of concrete review outputs (e.g., 'scores completed work, flags gaps, and prioritizes action items') to raise specificity above the abstract-anchor level.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes "multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building" — it names the domain and 2-3 actions, but the actions are abstract mechanisms rather than concrete user-facing capabilities, matching the score-3 anchor and falling short of the several-specific-actions bar at 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear "what" (multi-perspective review via judges/debate/consensus) but has no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "review", "debate", and "consensus" are relevant but lean technical; it lacks the natural synonyms a user would actually say (e.g., "critique", "code review", "feedback"), matching the some-keywords-but-missing-variations anchor at 3 rather than the good-coverage anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-agent debate + consensus framing carves a fairly distinct niche with minor overlap risk against generic review skills, fitting the mostly-distinct anchor at 4; it does not reach 5 because "review" is a common trigger with no explicit disambiguating phrases.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

Path

plugins/reflexion/skills/critique/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.