write-concisely
Apply writing rules to any documentation that humans will read. Makes your writing clearer, stronger, and more professional.
32
16%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/docs/skills/write-concisely/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
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 vague and lacks concrete actions, relying on subjective quality claims ('clearer, stronger, more professional') rather than specifying what the skill actually does. It also uses second person ('your writing'), which violates the voice guidelines. The absence of an explicit 'Use when...' clause and distinct trigger terms makes it difficult for Claude to reliably select this skill over other writing-related skills.
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 the user asks to review, edit, proofread, or improve documentation, READMEs, guides, or technical writing.'
Rewrite in third person voice ('Applies writing rules to documentation') instead of second person ('Makes your writing clearer') to comply with style guidelines.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description says 'apply writing rules' and 'makes your writing clearer, stronger, and more professional' but never specifies what concrete actions are performed. No specific rules, transformations, or operations are listed—just vague quality claims. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is weakly stated ('apply writing rules to documentation') and the 'when' is only implied ('any documentation that humans will read'). There is no explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger guidance, which caps this at 2 per the rubric. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant terms like 'documentation', 'writing', and quality adjectives ('clearer', 'stronger', 'professional'), but misses common user trigger terms like 'edit', 'proofread', 'style guide', 'tone', 'grammar', 'rewrite', 'review writing'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is very broad—'writing rules' and 'documentation' could overlap with grammar checkers, style guides, technical writing skills, proofreading skills, or any editing-related skill. There is no clear niche or distinct trigger. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%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 copy-paste of the entire public domain text of Strunk's 'The Elements of Style' with a minimal two-sentence overview. It provides no actionable guidance for Claude on how to apply these rules, wastes enormous token budget on content Claude already knows, and lacks any workflow, prioritization, or structured organization. The skill would need to be completely rewritten to be useful.
Suggestions
Replace the full book text with a concise checklist of the most impactful rules (e.g., active voice, omit needless words, positive form) with 1-2 brief before/after examples each, keeping the total under 100 lines.
Add a concrete workflow: e.g., 1) Read the user's text, 2) Check against priority rules, 3) Show specific edits with explanations, 4) Present revised version with a summary of changes made.
Define clear instructions for when and how to apply the rules—e.g., 'When reviewing documentation, prioritize Rules 10, 11, 12, 13 (active voice, positive form, concrete language, omit needless words)' with concrete examples of applying them to technical documentation.
If the full reference text is desired, move it to a separate bundle file (e.g., REFERENCE.md) and keep SKILL.md as a lean overview with links to the detailed reference.
| 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 content Claude already knows about English grammar and writing style. The token budget is massively wasted on explanations of basic punctuation rules, literary examples, and lengthy discussions that add no unique operational value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The content describes writing principles abstractly with literary examples from 1918 but provides no concrete, actionable instructions for how Claude should apply these rules to user tasks. There are no specific workflows, no before/after examples of applying rules to documentation, no templates, and no clear instructions on what to do when a user requests writing help. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no workflow defined at all. The overview says 'Apply these rules to task that requested by user' but never explains how to apply them—no sequence of steps, no prioritization of rules, no validation checkpoints, no process for reviewing and editing text against these rules. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic wall of text—the entire book is inlined into a single file with no separation into referenced files. The table of contents links are all internal anchors within the same massive document. There is no progressive disclosure structure; everything is dumped at once with no organization by importance or frequency of use. | 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.
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
dedca19
- 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.