bounded-work-item

Execute one bounded CCB work item and report evidence without changing workflow authority.

Quality

63%

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 ./docs/plantree/plans/agentic-loop-workflow/drafts/agentroles.ccb_worker/skills/bounded-work-item/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%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 admirably concise and well-structured for a simple skill, but its actionability and workflow clarity are held back by an unspecified execution method and a missing verification/feedback loop despite a 'verification expectation' input. Adding a short sequenced execution+verification step would materially raise both dimensions.

Suggestions

Add a brief ordered sequence for executing the item (e.g. read task packet -> work within assigned scope -> verify against acceptance criteria -> emit one result class) to improve workflow_clarity.

Make the verification step explicit with a feedback loop (verify evidence against acceptance criteria; if it fails, return 'needs_rework' or 'blocked') since the skill already declares a 'verification expectation' input.

Add one concrete pointer on how execution is performed (e.g. 'run the task packet's specified commands; record files touched and commands run') to move actionability from incomplete guidance toward executable specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every line (Inputs, Output result classes, report contents) earns its place. This matches the anchor for lean, competence-assuming content; it is not 4 because there are no trimmable over-explanations to point to.	5 / 5
Actionability	The output contract is concrete (exact result classes 'done'/'blocked'/'needs_rework' and a specific report contents list), but the body gives no method for how to actually execute the work item, leaving key execution details missing. Per the instruction-only scoring note absence of code is not penalized, yet the guidance is incomplete, matching the anchor for some concrete guidance but missing key details rather than the fully actionable level 5.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Although this is a simple single-purpose skill, the body only enumerates Inputs and Output classes with no ordered execution sequence, and the 'verification expectation' input has no described validate/verify checkpoint or feedback loop. This matches the anchor for steps/validation gaps; the simple-skill exception would allow higher only if an unambiguous sequenced action with validation were present, so it is not 4 or 5, and it is above 2 because Inputs/Output provide rough structure.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is organized into clear 'Inputs' and 'Output' sections, which per the rubric guideline lets a short reference-free skill score 5 on progressive disclosure. It is not lower because the structure is clean and there is no inlined bulk that belongs in a separate file.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 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 names a specific niche with a clear "what," but it omits explicit "when to use" trigger guidance and offers only a couple of concrete actions. Adding a Use-when clause with natural trigger terms would lift completeness and trigger_term_quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when ...' clause naming the natural trigger, e.g. 'Use when the orchestrator assigns a single CCB work node to execute.'

Include natural trigger terms or synonyms users would actually say (e.g. 'work item', 'work node', 'CCB task') to improve trigger_term_quality beyond a single domain term.

List one or two more concrete capabilities (e.g. 'run the task, collect verification evidence, return a result class') to raise specificity from 1-2 actions toward comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ("bounded CCB work item") and two concrete actions ("Execute ... work item and report evidence"), matching the anchor for naming a domain plus 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It is not a 4 because it does not list several specific actions, and not a 2 because the actions are concrete rather than minimal or generic.	3 / 5
Completeness	It gives a clear "what" (execute a bounded work item and report evidence) but no "Use when..." or equivalent trigger guidance in the description, so per the rubric guideline a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3. It is above 2 because the "what" is clear, and cannot be 4 without an explicit "when".	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It surfaces the relevant term "work item" (and the body adds "when orchestrator assigns a single work node"), but the description itself lacks synonyms, variations, or file extensions a user would naturally say. This matches the anchor for some relevant keywords missing common variations, rather than the sparse one-or-two-generic-words level 2 or the comprehensive level 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The phrasing "bounded CCB work item" plus "without changing workflow authority" carves a fairly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against related orchestration/work-item skills, matching the anchor for mostly distinct with minor overlap. It is not 5 because "work item" could still overlap with generic task-execution skills.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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: SeemSeam/claude_codex_bridge
Path: docs/plantree/plans/agentic-loop-workflow/drafts/agentroles.ccb_worker/skills/bounded-work-item/SKILL.md
Commit: 01d5b1c

Reviewed: about 19 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.