CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sales-company-research

Research companies, partners, and referral channels to shape draft outreach approaches, messages, or partner motions; exclude descriptive company profiling, list enrichment, and internal source finding.

61

Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/opencode/src/skill/builtin/.bundle/sales/workflows/sales-company-research/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 efficient, actionable, and well-structured with a clear workflow and a concrete output template, scoring consistently across dimensions; it stops short of 5s due to minor verbosity, the absence of a worked example, and lack of an explicit validation loop.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validate/retry checkpoint to the workflow (e.g., re-check that sourced facts stay distinct from inferences before drafting) to push workflow_clarity toward 5.

Tighten the Next Step Options section into a shorter list to improve token efficiency.

Provide one short worked example of the output template filled in to raise actionability.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean with tight workflow steps, compact routing rules, and no padding explaining what companies or partners are; minor redundancy between the restated scope and routing boundaries and a somewhat verbose Next Step Options section keep it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout — a numbered workflow, explicit routing rules ('Use enrich-company-and-contact-data when...'), a copy-paste output template with labeled fields, and explicit Rules — with only a minor gap of no worked example of a filled draft.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence (resolve, gather, explain, draft) with implicit checkpoints (label inferences, name evidence gaps, keep draft-only), but no explicit validate-and-retry loop; the draft-only/never-send guard is present though not framed as a validation step.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections (Workflow, Routing Boundaries, Next Step Options, Output, Rules); references to the shared index SKILL.md are one level deep but point outside the bundle and are not verified local files, and no in-skill bundle files exist to offload detail.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 specific and well-bounded with strong distinctiveness from sibling skills, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness and leaves the activation condition only implied.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when shaping outreach to a researched company or partner') to lift completeness above 3.

Include a few common user-facing synonyms (e.g. 'prospects', 'cold email', 'intros') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Consider splitting the long compound action list into a tighter lead clause followed by the exclusions for easier scanning.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'Research companies, partners, and referral channels', 'shape draft outreach approaches, messages, or partner motions' — plus explicit exclusions, but falls short of the comprehensive multi-action coverage of a 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3 with 'when' only weakly implied via the exclusion framing.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like 'companies', 'partners', 'referral channels', 'outreach', and 'messages' give good keyword coverage, though common synonyms a user might say (e.g. 'prospects', 'cold email', 'intro') are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit exclusions ('exclude descriptive company profiling, list enrichment, and internal source finding') carve out a clear niche and actively minimize conflict with adjacent sales skills.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-Code
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.