CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

orchestrator-capacity

Historical reference for script-owned loop capacity requests. Do not use from provider sessions.

53

Quality

58%

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/adapters/ccb/skills/orchestrator-capacity/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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 instruction document: lean prose, concrete do/don't rules, and an explicit reply format for its single purpose. The only notable gap is the absence of a worked example reply and in-file definitions for domain terms like 'CCB commands'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

At ~28 lines, every sentence carries a boundary rule or reply requirement; no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. This matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: explicit prohibitions ('Do not run CCB commands', 'Do not release agents, mutate task status...') and a four-item reply structure. It falls short of 5 because no example reply is given and terms like 'CCB commands' and 'task packet' are not defined in-file, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple, single-purpose skill and its single action is unambiguous: when capacity information is needed, reply with semantic evidence only, enumerated in a clear bulleted list. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so no validation cap applies, and the simple-skill exception holds.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files, and the content is cleanly split into 'Provider Boundary' and 'Reply Shape' sections. Per the rubric, a short single-file skill with well-organized sections scores 5.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

25%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 works as a deprecation marker but fails as a skill description: it states no capabilities, no use-when trigger, and uses only internal jargon no user would naturally say. Its one strength is distinctiveness — the niche vocabulary and explicit 'Do not use' directive make accidental triggering unlikely.

Suggestions

State at least one concrete capability action (e.g., what the reference documents or how it should be consulted) instead of only the filing label 'Historical reference for...'.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' (or equivalent 'Do not use except when...') clause so the when-condition is stated positively rather than leaving 'when' entirely absent.

Replace or supplement internal jargon like 'script-owned loop capacity requests' and 'provider sessions' with natural terms a user or agent would actually say when this skill is relevant.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("script-owned loop capacity requests") but lists no concrete capability actions — "Historical reference for" is a filing label, not an action. It sits at the 'names the domain, minimal actions' anchor rather than score 3, which requires 1–2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is vague (a historical reference, no stated capabilities) and the 'when' is absent — the only trigger-shaped clause ("Do not use from provider sessions") is a prohibition. Score 3 would require a clear 'what', which this lacks.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The text contains only internal rolepack jargon ("script-owned loop capacity requests", "provider sessions") with no natural phrase a user would say when needing this skill. It is not score 2 because not even generic natural keywords are present.

1 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly specific niche vocabulary (loop capacity, orchestrator/runner boundary) plus an explicit do-not-use directive make wrong-skill triggering unlikely. It falls short of score 5 because that anchor requires distinct positive triggers, which this description has none of.

4 / 5

Total

9

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 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.