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.

64

Quality

76%

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

86%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 an exemplary lean, instruction-only skill: a clear decision workflow for chart-family selection, concrete visual-quality rules, and a genuine QA checklist, all with zero token waste. The only gaps are the lack of a worked example and an explicit error-recovery loop after QA checks fail.

Suggestions

Add one compact worked example (e.g. a sample answer-oriented title with subtitle and annotation pattern) to make guidance copy-paste-ready for common cases.

Specify what to do when a QA check fails (e.g. 'if recomputed values disagree, fix aggregation and re-render before presenting') to close the feedback loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and prescriptive throughout — every line instructs ("Verify the data grain, measures, dimensions, units...", "Recompute plotted values from the reviewed rows") with zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Highly concrete guidance: a relationship-to-chart-family mapping ("Relationship between numeric measures: scatter plot", "Contribution to change: waterfall") and explicit checks ("Recompute plotted values from the reviewed rows"). Falls short of fully executable/copy-paste-ready level 5 because it provides no worked example (e.g. a sample title, encoding spec, or rendered pattern).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequence (question → verify data → choose family → define encodings → render → inspect) plus a QA section serving as a validation checklist. Not a 5 because there is no explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop and some checkpoints (e.g. what to do when inspection reveals a problem) are left implicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Workflow, Visual quality, QA) and no bundle files to disclose. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, this organization alone earns a 5 — no content belongs in separate reference files.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 concise, specific, and distinct, listing concrete chart-related actions and their destinations. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness and weakens natural invocation.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to chart, plot, or graph data, build a dashboard, or review a figure.'

Include common synonyms users actually say — 'graph', 'plot', 'visualize' — to broaden natural trigger coverage.

Optionally name one or two concrete output types (e.g. 'bar, line, or scatter charts') to push specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several concrete actions ("Design, create, revise, or QA quantitative charts and figures") and enumerates destinations (reports, dashboards, notebooks, slides), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not a 5 because it stays at the action level without deeper concrete specifics such as chart types, encodings, or export formats.

4 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (design, create, revise, or QA quantitative charts and figures) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; "for reports, dashboards, notebooks..." lists destinations rather than when to invoke the skill. Per the guideline, a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords users would say: "charts", "figures", "dashboards", "notebooks", "slides". Misses common synonyms like "graph", "plot", or "visualize", so it fits 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of a 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Quantitative charts and figures" carves a clear niche that is unlikely to trigger for document, code, or writing skills; only minor overlap risk with adjacent data-analysis or presentation skills. Fits 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the near-zero conflict of a 5.

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.

Validation — 16 / 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.