CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

plan-do-check-act

Iterative PDCA cycle for systematic experimentation and continuous improvement

35

Quality

31%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/kaizen/skills/plan-do-check-act/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%

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

This skill clearly documents the PDCA methodology with well-structured phases and excellent examples showing iterative improvement cycles. Its main weakness is verbosity—three multi-cycle examples are redundant when the pattern is clear after the first. The skill is more of a thinking framework than executable guidance, which limits actionability, though the structured output format partially compensates.

Suggestions

Reduce to one detailed multi-cycle example and one single-cycle example; move additional examples to a separate EXAMPLES.md file to improve conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Add a brief output template/skeleton at the top of the Steps section so Claude can quickly reference the expected format without reading through full examples.

Consider adding concrete measurable prompts or checklists for each phase (e.g., 'Before moving to DO, confirm: baseline metric captured? success criteria numeric?') to increase actionability.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is quite long due to three detailed examples, each spanning multiple PDCA cycles. While the examples are illustrative, they are verbose and repetitive—the pattern is clear after the first example. The core steps section is reasonably concise, but the overall token cost is high for what is essentially a process template.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides a clear process framework with well-structured phases and concrete examples, but it's a methodology/thinking framework rather than executable code or commands. The examples show output format but there's no actual executable guidance—it's more of a template for structured thinking. References to other skills like `/why` and `/analyse-problem` add some actionability but are not self-contained.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four-phase workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation in the CHECK phase and decision branching in the ACT phase (successful/unsuccessful/partially successful). The examples demonstrate feedback loops across multiple PDCA cycles, showing how failed or partial results feed into the next iteration. This is a strong workflow with clear checkpoints.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

All content is inline in a single monolithic file with no references to supporting documents. The three lengthy examples (each with multiple cycles) could be split into a separate EXAMPLES.md file. The main SKILL.md would benefit from keeping just one concise example and referencing additional ones externally. However, with no bundle files provided, there's nothing to split into, which partially explains the inline approach.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

0%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description is extremely vague and relies on abstract management terminology without specifying concrete actions, file types, or use cases. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause and provides no natural trigger terms a user would employ. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to reliably select this skill from a pool of alternatives.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Guides Plan-Do-Check-Act iterations by defining hypotheses, running experiments, analyzing results, and documenting learnings.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for help with PDCA, Plan-Do-Check-Act, iterative improvement, process optimization, or running structured experiments.'

Remove or supplement buzzwords like 'systematic experimentation' and 'continuous improvement' with specific, actionable language describing what inputs and outputs the skill handles.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description uses abstract, buzzword-heavy language ('systematic experimentation', 'continuous improvement') without listing any concrete actions. It does not describe what the skill actually does in practical terms.

1 / 3

Completeness

There is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, and the 'what' is extremely vague. Neither what the skill does nor when to use it is clearly answered.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The only potentially useful trigger term is 'PDCA cycle', which is niche jargon. Terms like 'systematic experimentation' and 'continuous improvement' are generic management buzzwords unlikely to match natural user queries.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is so generic ('systematic experimentation and continuous improvement') that it could overlap with any iterative process, debugging, testing, or project management skill. Only 'PDCA' provides some distinctiveness, but it's insufficient without concrete actions.

1 / 3

Total

4

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit
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.