CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

visualize-data

Design, create, revise, or QA quantitative charts and figures for reports, dashboards, notebooks, slides, files, or inline analytical answers.

61

Quality

71%

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 ./packages/opencode/src/skill/builtin/.bundle/data-analytics/workflows/visualize-data/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 lean, well-structured instruction skill with a strong workflow and validation checklist, but it stops short of executable rendering examples. Adding a minimal concrete code or command snippet for the render step would lift actionability.

Suggestions

Add a short executable snippet (Matplotlib or inline SVG) for the render step so the most common case is copy-paste ready.

Make the QA feedback loop explicit (e.g., 'If recomputed values differ or the file fails to open, fix the encoding/render and re-run QA') to reach full workflow clarity.

Optionally split the chart-family decision table into a reference file if the skill grows, keeping SKILL.md as the overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining what charts are or how libraries work; every line is actionable guidance. It is not below 5 because there is no padded or unnecessary explanation, and 5 is the scale max.

5 / 5

Actionability

The chart-family decision tree and the encoding/QA checklists are concrete guidance, but there is no executable rendering code or copy-paste example (e.g., a Matplotlib/SVG snippet), leaving the render step at a high level. It is not 4 because executable code or specific commands are absent, and not 2 because the decision framework and checklists go beyond minimal hints.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear six-step Workflow is followed by a QA section with validation checkpoints (recompute plotted values, confirm the file opens, check scales/labels). It is not 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., 'if QA fails, fix and re-render'), and not 3 because checkpoints are clearly present rather than implicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and organized into well-signaled sections (Workflow, Visual quality, QA) with no need for external references; no bundle files exist. Per the rubric's simple-skill note, this earns 5 on structure alone.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

63%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 action-rich with a clear niche, but it omits any explicit "Use when..." trigger guidance and lacks common synonyms like graph, plot, or visualization. Adding a trigger clause and synonym coverage would raise completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when creating charts, graphs, plots, or data visualizations for reports, dashboards, notebooks, or slides').

Include common synonyms users say — graph, plot, visualization, data viz — alongside 'charts and figures' to improve trigger-term coverage.

Tighten distinctiveness by pairing the quantitative-chart focus with a concrete trigger condition that separates it from general data-analysis skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Design, create, revise, or QA quantitative charts and figures" lists multiple concrete actions and enumerates destinations (reports, dashboards, notebooks, slides, files, inline analytical answers), giving comprehensive coverage. It is not below 5 because no concrete action category is missing, and not above 5 as 5 is the scale max.

5 / 5

Completeness

The description gives a clear "what" (design/create/revise/QA quantitative charts and figures) but has no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines. It is not 4 because "when" is entirely absent rather than weakly implied.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural destination terms (reports, dashboards, notebooks, slides) appear, but core synonyms users actually say (graph, plot, visualization, data viz, chart) are only partially covered by "charts and figures." It is not 4 because several common variations are missing, and not 2 because there is more than one or two generic keywords.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Quantitative charts and figures" with named destinations carves a fairly distinct niche with minimal conflict risk against non-visualization skills. It is not 5 because it could still overlap with general data-analysis or reporting skills, and not 3 because the quantitative-chart framing is more specific than a broad document skill.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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
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.