write-concisely

Apply writing rules to any documentation that humans will read. Makes your writing clearer, stronger, and more professional.

Quality

16%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/docs/skills/write-concisely/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

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

This skill is essentially a full copy-paste of Strunk's 'The Elements of Style' with a brief summary prepended. It provides no actionable workflow for applying writing rules to documentation, no concrete examples of how Claude should use these rules when editing user content, and consumes an enormous token budget with content Claude already knows. The skill would benefit from being radically condensed into a concise checklist with a clear editing workflow.

Suggestions

Replace the full book text with a concise checklist of the most impactful rules (e.g., 10-15 rules with one-line descriptions and one before/after example each), reducing the content by 90%+.

Add a clear workflow: e.g., 1) Read the user's text, 2) Identify violations of specific rules, 3) Propose edits with rule citations, 4) Verify edits don't change meaning.

Include 2-3 concrete before/after examples showing how to apply the rules to typical documentation (README, API docs, etc.) rather than literary prose examples.

If the full reference text is desired, move it to a separate REFERENCE.md file and keep SKILL.md as a lean overview with links to the detailed content.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill dumps the entire text of Strunk's 'Elements of Style' (a public domain book) into the SKILL.md. This is extremely verbose and includes vast amounts of explanation, examples, and literary analysis that Claude already knows. The content could be reduced to a fraction of its size while retaining all actionable guidance.	1 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides no concrete, executable guidance on how to apply these writing rules to user-requested tasks. It's a reference text dump with no workflow for reviewing/editing documents, no before/after examples of applying rules to documentation, and no instructions on how Claude should use these rules in practice.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is no workflow defined at all. The skill doesn't describe how to apply writing rules to documentation — no steps for reviewing text, identifying violations, making corrections, or validating improvements. It's purely a reference dump with no process guidance.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is a monolithic wall of text with the entire book inlined. The summary at the top is immediately followed by the full text, making the summary redundant. There are no external references, no separation of quick-reference from detailed content, and the table of contents links are all internal to the same massive document.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Description

32%

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 is too vague to effectively differentiate this skill from other writing or documentation-related skills. It lacks concrete actions, explicit trigger guidance, and distinctive terminology. The second-person phrasing ('Makes your writing') also violates the third-person voice requirement.

Suggestions

List specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Enforces active voice, removes redundancy, applies consistent formatting, and simplifies sentence structure in documentation.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when writing or editing READMEs, guides, technical docs, or any user-facing documentation.'

Rewrite in third person to comply with voice guidelines — replace 'Makes your writing' with something like 'Produces clearer, stronger, more professional prose.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague language like 'clearer, stronger, and more professional' without listing any concrete actions. It doesn't specify what 'writing rules' are applied or what operations are performed (e.g., grammar checking, style enforcement, readability improvements).	1 / 3
Completeness	The 'what' is weakly stated ('apply writing rules') and the 'when' is only implied ('any documentation that humans will read') rather than explicitly stated with a 'Use when...' clause. The lack of explicit trigger guidance caps this at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some relevant terms like 'documentation' and 'writing,' which users might naturally say. However, it misses common variations like 'docs,' 'README,' 'technical writing,' 'prose,' 'editing,' 'proofreading,' or 'style guide.'	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is very generic — 'writing rules' and 'documentation' could overlap with many other skills related to editing, formatting, linting, style guides, or general writing assistance. There's nothing that carves out a clear niche.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (1045 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit
Commit: 3711edf

Reviewed: 20 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.