docs-workflows

Documentation and extension workflows derived from local slash commands (docs, explanation, issues, prototypes, tutorials, MCP design review).

Quality

69%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/docs-workflows/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

80%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-organized overview that appropriately defers detail to a real one-level-deep reference bundle, with concrete execution rules and a helpful commit guard. Its main gap is the absence of explicit validation checkpoints in the execution workflow.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification step to the execution workflow, e.g. 'Confirm all required template fields are present before finalizing the output'.

Render the 'Source of truth' reference list as markdown links (e.g. [explanation.md](references/explanation.md)) rather than bare code spans to improve navigation.

Optionally include one short concrete before/after example of applying a template so the output contract is unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and well-sectioned with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (when-to-use, source-of-truth, execution rules, command mapping) earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	Execution rules give concrete, specific guidance with real paths and an output-contract rule, and the specs/-gitignored guard is actionable; it stops short of 5 because guidance is pointer-based rather than containing fully copy-paste-ready concrete examples.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered sequence exists and includes a useful commit-guard for specs/, but there are no explicit validation/verification checkpoints (e.g. confirming required template fields are present before finalizing), leaving the sequence without verify gates.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview pointing one level deep into a verified references/ bundle, with each reference clearly listed under 'Source of truth' and a dedicated command-mapping pointer; navigation is easy and nothing is nested or inlined that belongs elsewhere.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

58%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 clearly states what the skill covers and enumerates concrete sub-domains, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger clause and uses some technical jargon over natural user phrasing. Adding a 'Use when...' sentence with natural trigger terms would lift completeness and trigger quality.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause to the frontmatter description naming natural user phrases (e.g. 'Use when the user asks to write or standardize docs, draft an issue or explanation, plan a prototype, or add a tutorial/skill/command entry').

Replace jargon like 'extension workflows' and 'MCP design review' with more natural synonyms a user would actually say, and add file/term variations.

Lead with concrete verbs (create, draft, standardize, add, run) rather than category nouns to push specificity toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain plus several concrete sub-areas (docs, explanation, issues, prototypes, tutorials, MCP design review), matching the 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor; falls short of 5 because items are categories rather than enumerated verbs.	4 / 5
Completeness	The description gives a clear 'what' but no explicit 'when'/'Use when' trigger clause (that guidance lives only in the body), which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'documentation', 'tutorials', 'issues', 'prototypes' are relevant, but 'slash commands', 'extension workflows', and 'MCP design review' lean technical and common natural variations/synonyms are missing.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The 'derived from local slash commands' framing and enumerated sub-types carve a fairly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against generic documentation skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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: TencentCloudBase/CloudBase-AI-Toolkit
Path: skills/docs-workflows/SKILL.md
Commit: ef9f182

Reviewed: 3 days 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.