CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

edit-article

Edit and improve articles by restructuring sections, improving clarity, and tightening prose. Use when user wants to edit, revise, or improve an article draft.

64

Quality

81%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 appropriately self-contained for a simple skill, but the workflow is incomplete and the editing guidance stays high-level. Completing step 2 and adding one concrete rewrite example would lift actionability and workflow clarity substantially.

Suggestions

Complete step 2: after rewriting all sections, add a closing sub-step (e.g., '2b. Re-read the full article end-to-end and fix transitions between sections before presenting the revised draft').

Add one short before/after rewrite example showing what 'improve clarity, coherence, and flow' concretely looks like, so the guidance is actionable rather than directional.

Clarify or trim the 240-character paragraph rule — either justify it briefly or restate it as a concrete, checkable constraint, since an unexplained hard cap may be applied mechanically.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — every line instructs (divide into sections, respect dependency ordering, confirm, rewrite with a 240-char paragraph cap) with zero padding or explanations of known concepts, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Some concrete guidance exists ('Confirm the sections with the user', 'maximum 240 characters per paragraph') but key details are missing — no before/after rewrite examples or specific techniques for improving clarity, coherence, or flow, matching the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A sequence is present with one checkpoint ('Confirm the sections with the user'), but step 2 dangles with a lone '2a' and the workflow never closes — there is no final review or reassembly step after all sections are rewritten, matching 'steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit'.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no content that belongs in external files, so no references are needed; however, the numbered structure has minor organization gaps (a '2.' with only a '2a', no headers), placing it just below the simple-skill 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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.

A strong description: it states concrete third-person capabilities and pairs them with an explicit, synonym-rich 'Use when' trigger clause. Its only weakness is moderate keyword coverage and slight overlap potential with adjacent writing skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (article editing) and three concrete actions — 'restructuring sections, improving clarity, and tightening prose' — with minor coverage gaps, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (restructure sections, improve clarity, tighten prose) and 'when' via an explicit 'Use when user wants to edit, revise, or improve an article draft' clause with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'edit, revise, or improve an article draft' provides natural synonyms a user would say, but common variations like 'rewrite', 'polish', or 'proofread' are missing, matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Article editing is a mostly distinct niche with clear triggers, though it carries minor overlap risk with general writing/revision skills, matching the 'mostly distinct' anchor.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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

SnowingFox/ai-skills

Path

.cursor/skills/edit-article/SKILL.md

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.