CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

orchestration-bundle-candidate

Select one route and return one adaptive one-to-four-workgroup bundle candidate as reply-only evidence.

52

Quality

56%

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 ./docs/plantree/plans/agentic-loop-workflow/drafts/agentroles.ccb_orchestrator/skills/orchestration-bundle-candidate/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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.

The body is a tight, well-structured spec that gives exact field names and literal values with a clear validation/replan gate, assuming Claude's competence throughout. Its main gap is the absence of a full concrete JSON example of the candidate bundle.

Suggestions

Add one complete, copy-paste-ready JSON example of a valid orchestration_bundle_candidate (one-node and multi-node) to close the actionability gap.

Consider moving the detailed field-schema enumeration into a short reference snippet or example so the reply contract is scannable at a glance.

Make the error-recovery loop after replan_required slightly more explicit (what evidence shape to return) to nudge workflow_clarity toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence without explaining basic concepts, with every constraint earning its place; a few elaborated 'do not emit X, Y, Z' lists could be trimmed, so it sits just below the lean-and-efficient 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

It gives exact root/selection field names, literal policy values, and a 500-char rationale limit — highly actionable for an instruction-only skill — but lacks a complete copy-paste JSON example of a full candidate, the minor gap that keeps it below 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The select-route → apply-selection-rules → emit-candidate-or-replan_required flow is clearly sequenced with an explicit validation gate (return replan_required when verification refs lack direct argv commands); minor gaps in explicit error-recovery detail keep it just below 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-organized into Reply Contract, Adaptive Selection, and Authority Boundary sections with no bundle files (none needed); it is a cohesive single-file contract, sitting at good-structure rather than a 5 that would require well-signaled one-level-deep references.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

38%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 states a concrete, niche-specific purpose in third person but relies entirely on internal jargon and omits any 'when to use it' trigger guidance. It is distinctive but not user-discoverable.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the immaculate orchestrator asks for a route decision and bundle candidate').

Replace or supplement jargon like 'workgroup bundle candidate' and 'reply-only evidence' with terms a user would actually say.

Reconsider whether one or two more concrete actions could be listed to push specificity from 2 actions toward comprehensive coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes "Select one route and return one adaptive one-to-four-workgroup bundle candidate" — it names the domain plus two concrete actions (select a route, return a bundle candidate), matching the anchor that names a domain and 1-2 concrete actions without being comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does (select a route and return a bundle candidate) but provides no "Use when..." trigger guidance; per the judging guideline a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "workgroup bundle candidate" and "reply-only evidence" are internal orchestration jargon; a user would not naturally say these when they need the skill, matching the anchor for no natural keywords / only technical jargon. Not a 2 because even generic natural keywords are absent.

1 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The orchestration-bundle niche is specific with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, but the jargon-heavy framing could overlap with related orchestration skills, so it sits at mostly-distinct rather than a clean 5.

4 / 5

Total

11

/

20

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
SeemSeam/claude_codex_bridge
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.