CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

plan-task

Refine a draft task specification into a fully planned, implementation-ready task with acceptance criteria, architecture, per-step sub-task files and verifiable phases

Quality

70%

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 ./antigravity/skills/plan-task/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is plan-task in NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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 an exceptionally actionable and clearly sequenced orchestrator workflow — every phase, prompt, validation gate and retry path is concretely specified. Its weaknesses are a heavily padded, repetitive single-file layout (~1230 lines) that reuses identical blocks many times and inlines four full judge rubrics and a model-selection policy that would sit better in reference files.

Suggestions

Factor the four per-phase Decision Logic blocks into one shared template referenced by each judge section (e.g. "Decision Logic (per phase, with PHASE and RE-LAUNCH-AGENT substituted)"), cutting ~60 repeated lines.

Move the four full judge rubrics and the Model Selection Policy into reference files (e.g. references/judge-rubrics.md, references/model-policy.md) and keep only the launch prompts inline, so ~500 lines load only when actually judging or tiering.

Consolidate the Iteration Discretion Rule to a single canonical section and replace the three other restatements with one-line links, removing the duplicated stage-filtering notes in Pre-Flight Checks.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably verbose: the identical "Decision Logic" block is repeated verbatim for all four judges, the Iteration Discretion Rule is restated in four places (CRITICAL list, its own section, Error Handling, Escalation interplay), stage-filtering rules appear twice, and four full judge rubrics (~350 lines) are inlined in a single 1230-line file. It is not anchor 1 because it never explains concepts Claude already knows — the padding is redundancy, not background tuition.

2 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact agent-launch prompts with placeholders, configuration-resolution pseudocode, TodoWrite JSON, concrete commands ("bash ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/create-folders.sh", "git mv <TASK_FILE> .specs/tasks/todo/"), checkpoint message templates, and a copy-paste Phase 4 prompt. This matches the anchor for copy-paste-ready guidance covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The multi-phase sequence (parallel 2a/2b/2c → 3 → 4 → promote) is explicit with a diagram, every phase has judge validation against THRESHOLD, retry loops are bounded by MAX_ITERATIONS with drawn retry flows, and error handling plus human checkpoints are specified. This matches the anchor for clear sequencing with explicit validation, feedback loops and checklists.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

In-file navigation is good (linked sections, clear headers) and plugin-root references ("@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/prompts/judge.md", "scripts/create-folders.sh") are one level deep, but no bundle files exist and hundreds of lines of judge rubrics and the Model Selection Policy are inlined in SKILL.md where they clearly belong in separate reference files. This fits the anchor for content that should be separate being inline, and falls short of anchor 4 because essentially no content is actually split out.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 communicates a concrete transformation with specific deliverables, but it omits any 'when to use' guidance and lacks the natural trigger phrases (plan, task planning) users would most likely say. It is a solid capability statement that fails the completeness and trigger-quality bars the rubric sets.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user wants to plan or refine a draft task/spec, turn a rough task spec into an implementation-ready plan, or asks for task decomposition, acceptance criteria or implementation phases."

Include the natural synonyms users would say — "plan a task", "task planning", "break down a feature into steps" — so trigger matching works on real phrasing, not just artifact nouns.

Optionally mention the multi-stage workflow (parallel research/codebase/business analysis, architecture, decomposition) to strengthen the what-coverage toward anchor 5 on specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (draft task refinement) and several concrete deliverables — "acceptance criteria, architecture, per-step sub-task files and verifiable phases" — matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It is not anchor 5 because the multi-stage analysis workflow (research, codebase analysis, decomposition) that the skill actually performs is absent from the description.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear — "Refine a draft task specification into a fully planned, implementation-ready task" — but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It sits exactly on the anchor for a clear 'what' with 'when' missing.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like "draft task specification", "acceptance criteria" and "architecture" are present, but the natural phrases a user would say ("plan a task", "task planning", "break down a spec") are missing, and there is no trigger context at all. This fits the anchor for some relevant keywords missing common variations, not anchor 4's good coverage with only a few terms missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The draft-task-refinement niche with its specific artifact list ("per-step sub-task files and verifiable phases") is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against generic planning or task-management skills. It does not reach anchor 5 because the description offers no explicit distinct triggers that would eliminate conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (1234 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

Path

antigravity/skills/plan-task/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.