CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

plan

Write a markdown plan to .hermes/plans/; no execution.

54

Quality

62%

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 ./skills/software-development/plan/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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 content is highly actionable with concrete templates and exact commands, but it is monolithic and carries explanatory padding (DRY/YAGNI/TDD primers and a redundant recap) that a leaner, reference-split version would shed.

Suggestions

Move the DRY/YAGNI/TDD principles and Common Mistakes into a referenced file (e.g. PRINCIPLES.md) and keep SKILL.md a lean overview, since no bundle files currently exist.

Remove the closing "Remember" code block, which restates principles already covered earlier in the body.

Tighten the Principles section to one-line reminders rather than full code examples illustrating concepts Claude already knows.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Most of the body is useful actionable guidance, but the Principles section explains DRY/YAGNI/TDD (which Claude already knows) and the closing "Remember" block duplicates earlier content; the padding is more than minor so it falls below 4 but is not severely verbose.

3 / 5

Actionability

It provides a copy-paste-ready task template, an exact save path with a timestamped filename format, and exact commands with expected output (e.g. `pytest tests/path/test.py::test_specific_behavior -v` / Expected: PASS), fully covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-step Writing Process is clearly sequenced and ends with a review checklist, but there is no explicit verify-the-saved-plan feedback loop, leaving it just short of the explicit-validation anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with headers but is a ~325-line monolith with no external references, and content that could live in separate files (the full task template, principles, common mistakes) is inlined; this matches the anchor where separable content stays inline.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 is concise and gives one concrete action with a specific output location, but it lacks an explicit trigger clause and broader keyword coverage, leaving completeness and trigger-term quality mid-range.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause naming natural triggers, e.g. "Use when the user asks for a plan, design, or outline instead of execution."

Broaden trigger terms with synonyms ("plan, design, outline, strategy") so the description matches more natural user phrasing.

Mention 1-2 more concrete capabilities (e.g. "breaks work into bite-sized TDD tasks") to lift specificity above a single action.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names one concrete action ("Write a markdown plan to .hermes/plans/") plus a constraint ("no execution"), but does not enumerate several specific actions as the 4 anchor requires, and it is more concrete than the minimal/generic 2 anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear, but there is no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, and the "when" is only weakly implied via "no execution"; the rubric caps completeness at 3 when trigger guidance is missing.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"plan" is a natural keyword a user would say, but the description omits common synonyms and variations (design, outline, strategy, "just plan it"), so coverage is partial rather than good.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The plan-mode niche with the explicit ".hermes/plans/" output path and "no execution" qualifier is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against related planning/workflow skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
NousResearch/hermes-agent
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.