CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

plan-do-check-act

Iterative PDCA cycle for systematic experimentation and continuous improvement

Quality

64%

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/kaizen/skills/plan-do-check-act/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 delivers a well-sequenced PDCA workflow with strong feedback loops and concrete quantified examples, scoring well on actionability and workflow clarity. It is somewhat verbose in its worked examples and Notes, which could be tightened or moved to a reference file.

Suggestions

Reduce the three full worked examples to one detailed multi-cycle example plus two brief summaries to reclaim token budget.

Trim obvious Notes ('Failed experiments are learning opportunities', 'Document everything') that restate what the workflow already implies.

If examples grow further, split them into an examples/ reference file referenced from the main body to improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The phase steps are efficient, but ~170 lines of fully-worked multi-cycle examples and padded Notes ('Failed experiments are learning opportunities') could be trimmed without losing clarity.

3 / 5

Actionability

Numbered, concrete steps ('Set success criteria (measurable targets)', 'Record any deviations') plus specific quantified examples give actionable guidance; minor gaps only.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Four phases are clearly sequenced with CHECK serving as validation and Act providing explicit success/fail/partial feedback loops into new cycles; minor validation gaps in the standardize branch.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-organized file with clear section headers and no external references needed; the only concern is the large volume of inline worked examples that could be split out.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

45%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 identifies the PDCA methodology and its purpose but is thin on concrete actions and entirely lacks explicit trigger guidance for when to invoke it. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases would lift the completeness and trigger-term dimensions.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when improving a process, reducing defects, or running iterative experiments'.

Replace abstract terms ('systematic experimentation', 'continuous improvement') with concrete actions: 'Plan, implement, measure, and standardize changes'.

Include common synonyms/users' phrasings (e.g. 'process improvement', 'kaizen', 'A3') to improve trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('PDCA cycle') but the stated actions ('systematic experimentation', 'continuous improvement') are generic and abstract rather than concrete capabilities.

2 / 5

Completeness

It conveys a clear 'what' (an iterative PDCA cycle) but omits any 'when' guidance — no 'Use when...' clause — which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'continuous improvement' is a natural user phrase, but 'PDCA' is methodology jargon and common synonyms/variations (e.g. 'process improvement', 'kaizen') are absent with no 'Use when' trigger.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named PDCA methodology gives it some specificity, but broad terms ('experimentation', 'continuous improvement') overlap with the related problem-solving skills it references.

3 / 5

Total

11

/

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/kaizen/skills/plan-do-check-act/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.