CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

technical-writer

Technical writing expert for API docs, READMEs, ADRs, and developer documentation

49

Quality

53%

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 ./crates/openfang-skills/bundled/technical-writer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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

The body is cleanly organized and appropriately scoped as a self-contained overview with no needless external references, scoring well on progressive disclosure. Its weakness is actionability and workflow clarity: it offers principled, structural advice rather than concrete templates, examples, or a sequenced verification workflow.

Suggestions

Add at least one copy-paste-ready template (e.g. an ADR skeleton or a Keep a Changelog header block) to lift actionability from descriptive to executable.

Replace advisory filler ("a diagram is worth a thousand words of prose") with concrete guidance on when and how to add diagrams.

Turn 'Copy-Paste Verification' into an explicit numbered workflow with a validation/retry checkpoint for code snippets.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body uses lean, well-organized bullets and avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows, but includes advisory filler such as "documentation is the product's user interface for developers" and "a diagram is worth a thousand words of prose", so it is 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than fully lean.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete structural guidance (ADR sections, Keep a Changelog headers, README/API-reference component lists) but describes what to include rather than providing copy-paste-ready templates or examples, fitting 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' even for an instruction-only skill.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Content is organized into Techniques/Common Patterns/Pitfalls, but there is no sequenced multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints; the 'Copy-Paste Verification' item is a principle, not a feedback loop, so it matches 'steps/sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit.'

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single self-contained file under 50 lines with no bundle references and clear section headings (Principles, Techniques, Patterns, Pitfalls); per the rubric's simple-skill note, well-organized sections with no need for external references score 3.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 clear and uses appropriate third-person voice with concrete document-type keywords, but it functions as a role label rather than a trigger-rich capability statement. It lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which caps both completeness and trigger quality at 2.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when writing or revising API docs, READMEs, ADRs, changelogs, or developer onboarding material."

Lead with concrete actions ("Write, review, and structure...") instead of a role label so the skill reads as a capability list.

Include common user phrasings like "changelog", "onboarding guide", or "documentation review" to improve trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase "Technical writing expert for API docs, READMEs, ADRs, and developer documentation" names the domain and several concrete artifacts but lists no action verbs (write/generate/review), matching the anchor that 'names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' rather than the multi-action list required for a 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill is (a technical writing expert for those doc types) but provides no explicit 'when to use it' guidance; per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces natural terms a user would say ("API docs", "READMEs", "ADRs", "developer documentation") but misses common variations and an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, so it is 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than full coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The ADR/README/API-docs niche is reasonably specific, but "developer documentation" is broad and the lack of explicit triggers means it could still overlap with general coding or doc-tooling skills, fitting 'somewhat specific but could still overlap.'

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
RightNow-AI/openfang
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.