diagram-maker

Create SVG/HTML or Excalidraw diagrams for concepts, architecture, flows, and whiteboards.

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/diagram-maker/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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.

A tight, actionable, well-structured instruction body that assumes Claude's competence and correctly pushes executable templates to one-level-deep reference files. Main gaps: a small irrelevant migration-note section, a hedged verification step, and section labels that are not markdown headings.

Suggestions

Delete the "PilotDeck Migration Note" section; the temp-dir source path and review status are process metadata that earn no tokens in the skill body.

Promote "Routing", "Workflow", "SVG/HTML rules", and "Excalidraw rules" to real markdown headings (## ...) so sections are navigable.

Make step 5's validation concrete, e.g. "Re-open the file and parse the SVG (or json.load the .excalidraw) to confirm valid syntax before finishing; fix and re-check on failure."

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and rule-dense with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (e.g. "Draw connectors before nodes so arrows sit behind boxes", "Use roughness `1`, `fontFamily: 1`"); the trailing "PilotDeck Migration Note" with a temp-file path and review status is wasted context that keeps it from score 5, but it is far too tight for score 2.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is highly concrete and executable ("Every connector path has `fill=\"none\"`", "Minimum labeled shape: 120x60", "Leave 24px text padding") with complete templates delegated to real reference files; "Verify syntax by opening/parsing when feasible" is soft and no inline example covers a common case end-to-end, so it falls short of fully copy-paste-ready score 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear five-step sequence (extract -> layout -> labels -> generate -> verify) with an explicit verification step; it misses score 5 because validation is hedged ("when feasible") with no error-recovery loop, and no destructive/batch cap applies so score 3 is too low.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is appropriately split across real, clearly-signaled, one-level-deep references ("Use `references/svg-template.md` as the wrapper and replace `<!-- SVG -->`", "For exact Excalidraw element snippets, read `references/excalidraw-patterns.md`"), both of which exist; section labels ("Routing", "Workflow", "SVG/HTML rules", "Excalidraw rules") are plain text rather than markdown headings, weakening navigation and keeping it below score 5.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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.

A concise, concrete description with good trigger terms and a distinct niche, but it omits any explicit "when to use this" guidance, which both limits discoverability and caps completeness per the rubric. Adding a Use-when clause with common synonyms would lift it to top tier.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks for a diagram, flowchart, architecture drawing, whiteboard sketch, or wants a visual as SVG, HTML, or .excalidraw output."

Include common natural synonyms users say (chart, drawing, sequence diagram, topology) and file extensions (.svg, .excalidraw) to strengthen trigger-term coverage.

Optionally enumerate the concrete actions (create, sketch, edit) rather than a single "Create" verb to broaden specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names concrete output formats ("SVG/HTML or Excalidraw") and several concrete diagram domains ("concepts, architecture, flows, and whiteboards"), going beyond the 1-2 actions of the score-3 anchor; a single verb keeps it short of the comprehensive multi-action coverage of score 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is clear (create SVG/HTML or Excalidraw diagrams for listed domains) but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3; it is not 2 because the "what" is fully explicit rather than vague.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural trigger words are present ("diagrams", "SVG", "Excalidraw", "architecture", "flows", "whiteboards") but common variations users say are missing ("chart", "drawing", "sequence diagram", "topology", file extensions like .svg/.excalidraw), matching "good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing".	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Format-specific triggers (Excalidraw, SVG, whiteboard) carve a clear niche distinct from document and data-processing skills, but "diagrams for concepts, architecture, flows" creates minor overlap risk with charting/visualization skills, so it is not the fully conflict-free score 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: OpenBMB/PilotDeck
Path: skills/diagram-maker/SKILL.md
Commit: 66bfd09

Reviewed: 2 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.