CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

textual-builder

Build Text User Interface (TUI) applications using the Textual Python framework (v0.86.0+). Use when creating terminal-based applications, prototyping card games or interactive CLIs, or when the user mentions Textual, TUI, or terminal UI. Includes comprehensive reference documentation, card game starter template, and styling guides.

83

1.35x
Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

87%

1.35x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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 well-structured with exemplary progressive disclosure — real files, explicit read-when triggers, one level deep — and largely actionable quick-start content. Weaknesses are mild: a redundant reference-file listing repeated in 'Resources', an unpinned time-sensitive version note, and workflows lacking any run-and-verify checkpoint.

Suggestions

Remove the 'Resources' section's re-listing of references/*.md (it duplicates the 'When to Read Reference Documentation' section verbatim in purpose) and drop or move the 'Current version: v0.86.0+ (as of November 2025, latest is v6.6.0)' line out of the main body — it is time-sensitive and reads as contradictory.

Add a verification checkpoint to each workflow (e.g., after 'Add interactivity', a final step 'Run python app.py and confirm bindings/messages work') so sequences end in an explicit check rather than an implicit one.

Include one small executable snippet for the most common customization case (e.g., a BINDINGS entry plus its action_* method, or an on_button_pressed handler) so the interactive-features guidance is copy-paste ready like the Quick Start.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient — code-forward with no padded conceptual explanations — but includes unnecessary material: the time-sensitive line 'Current version: v0.86.0+ (as of November 2025, latest is v6.6.0)' (which is also internally confusing) sits outside any deprecated/old-patterns section, and the 'Resources' section re-lists the same five reference files already enumerated with full 'Read when/Covers' detail above. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the minor-trim level of 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Quick Start gives a complete, runnable app ('from textual.app import App...' through 'app.run()'), the card-game path gives copy-paste commands ('cp -r assets/card-game-template/* ./my-game/', 'python app.py'), and installation commands are concrete. Not 5 because the workflows and Best Practices ('Use reactive() for state', 'Define key bindings in BINDINGS') point at APIs without a single executable snippet for the most common non-template case (e.g., a button handler or binding in context), leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

'Common Workflows' gives clearly sequenced numbered steps for three scenarios, each naming concrete targets (e.g., 'Customize the Card widget', 'Modify game logic in action methods', 'read references/layout.md'). Not 5 because no step verifies the result (e.g., 'run python app.py and confirm the app renders') — checkpoints are implicit at best — but this is non-destructive UI work, so the gap is minor rather than the validation-absent anchor at 3.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a clean overview: each reference file has an explicit 'Read when' trigger and a 'Covers' list, references are one level deep, all five reference files and the card-game-template asset (README.md, app.py, app.tcss) exist as referenced, and navigation via 'Common Workflows' maps tasks to files. Matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

90%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 with excellent trigger coverage and a clear what/when split; it would rarely fire for the wrong skill. The only weakness is that the capability list is thin — one core action plus use contexts — and the final sentence padding describes bundle contents instead of capabilities.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain and one core concrete action — 'Build Text User Interface (TUI) applications using the Textual Python framework' — with use contexts ('prototyping card games or interactive CLIs') framed as triggers rather than distinct capabilities. This matches the anchor for naming the domain with 1-2 concrete actions that are not comprehensive; the trailing 'Includes comprehensive reference documentation, card game starter template, and styling guides' describes bundle contents rather than capabilities, so it does not raise specificity. It does not reach 4 because no several distinct actions (e.g., styling, widgets, bindings) are explicitly listed.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ('Build Text User Interface (TUI) applications using the Textual Python framework') and when ('Use when creating terminal-based applications, prototyping card games or interactive CLIs, or when the user mentions Textual, TUI, or terminal UI') with concrete trigger phrases. Matches the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger coverage is comprehensive with synonyms: 'Text User Interface (TUI)', 'terminal-based applications', 'Textual', 'TUI', 'terminal UI', 'card games', and 'interactive CLIs'. Not below 5 because these cover the natural variations a user would say for this domain (no file extensions are meaningfully applicable).

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Textual framework and TUI terminology form a clear niche with distinct, unambiguous triggers ('Textual', 'TUI', 'terminal UI') that would not naturally invoke other skills. Minimal conflict risk; fits the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
YPares/agent-skills
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.