template-skill

Replace with description of the skill and when Claude should use it.

2.27x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

100%

2.27x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./template-skill/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

18%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 empty template stub — one placeholder heading with no instructions, examples, workflow, or bundle files. Conciseness is only middling because the one line present is authoring scaffolding rather than guidance, while actionability and workflow clarity fail outright because no content exists. The skill content was never written.

Suggestions

Replace '# Insert instructions below' with actual instructions: concrete, executable commands or code covering the skill's core task, which would raise actionability from the lowest anchor.

If the skill involves multi-step or destructive/batch operations, lay out a numbered workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (validate → fix → retry) so workflow clarity can score above 3.

Add well-organized section headers (e.g. '## Quick start', '## Advanced') and move bulky detail into one-level-deep reference files if the skill grows, so progressive disclosure has actual structure to evaluate.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is a single heading, "# Insert instructions below", so it is trivially free of verbosity — but that line is an authoring placeholder addressed to the skill writer, not guidance that earns its place for the model. It sits between the verbose anchors (1-2) and the 'every token earns its place' anchor (5), so a middle score fits; it is not noticeably below or above that midpoint.	3 / 5
Actionability	"Insert instructions below" provides no concrete code, commands, or steps — it only describes (to the author) that instructions should be added. It matches 'Entirely vague or abstract; no concrete code or commands; only describes rather than instructs'.	1 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is no sequence of steps, no workflow, and no validation of any kind — the body contains only the placeholder heading. This matches the lowest anchor 'Steps missing or incoherent; no sequence'.	1 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is minimal: a single placeholder heading with no sections, no content, and no references (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files exist in the bundle). It is not a monolithic wall of text or nested-reference trap (anchor 1), but it also has none of the 'some structure' the anchor-3 example requires, so it falls between anchors 1 and 2, at minimal structure.	2 / 5
	Total	7 / 20 Passed

Description

0%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 an unfilled template placeholder with no information about the skill's purpose, capabilities, or trigger conditions. It fails on every dimension because there is literally nothing to evaluate beyond template scaffolding. This skill description was never authored.

Suggestions

Replace the placeholder with a concrete statement of what the skill does, e.g. 'Extract text and tables from PDF files, fill forms, merge documents' — naming the domain plus 2-4 specific actions.

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when the user mentions PDFs, forms, or document extraction' so completeness and trigger-term quality can score above 3.

Include natural synonyms and file extensions (e.g. 'PDF files, PDFs, .pdf') to make the skill discoverable and distinct from related document skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description is the literal placeholder "Replace with description of the skill and when Claude should use it." — it names no domain and no concrete actions, only pure template language. It exactly matches the anchor 'Entirely vague; no concrete actions; pure abstract language' and cannot score higher since nothing about the skill is stated.	1 / 5
Completeness	Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered; the text is a template stub to be filled in. It matches the lowest anchor 'Missing both what and when', and the guideline about a missing 'Use when...' clause capping completeness is moot since nothing is present at all.	1 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	There are no keywords whatsoever — the text is an authoring instruction, not a description, so it contains neither natural user phrases nor technical terms. This matches 'No natural keywords; only technical jargon or entirely generic language' at the bottom anchor.	1 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	With no domain or capability named, the description is entirely generic and would be indistinguishable from — and conflict with — virtually any other skill. It matches 'Entirely generic; would conflict with virtually any skill'.	1 / 5
	Total	4 / 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: Prat011/awesome-llm-skills
Path: template-skill/SKILL.md
Commit: 35e1ea2

Reviewed: 8 hours 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.