CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agent-doc-discipline

Writing-time discipline for documents agents consume (the five surfaces, specs, tickets, .omc/skills/) — every rule checkable and carrying a why, steps before reference, one meaning in one home, no restating what the environment already says. Mandatory at drydock seed generation and the launch C5 sediment pass; opt-in for any other agent-facing doc edit. The companion of minimal-code-discipline: that one disciplines code, this one disciplines papers.

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 ./skills/agent-doc-discipline/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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 disciplined, self-contained set of rules where each carries an observable test and a stated why, capped by a verification checklist — the skill practices what it preaches. Only minor improvements are available: trimming rhetorical idiom and adding one worked example per rule.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Each rule is stated once and paired with an inline _Test_ line, with no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows; a few rhetorical flourishes ("duplication is drift waiting to happen", "Scrape barnacles on write") could be trimmed without changing behavior.

4 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill, absence of code is not penalized: every rule carries an observable condition ("_Test:_ an agent can decide pass/fail from the text alone"), making the guidance concrete and checkable. Minor gap: no worked good/bad examples showing a rule applied to a real doc snippet.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a single-purpose skill (apply the writing discipline) with no multi-step procedure, and the closing "## Verification" section is an explicit before-done checklist, so the single action is unambiguous with validation present — meeting the simple-skill exception. Not 4: there are no validation gaps; the checklist covers every rule family.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is ~49 lines, self-contained with no bundle files and no need for external references, organized into clear sections (When Not to Use, The Discipline, Verification) — matching the guideline that a sub-50-line skill with no reference needs scores 5 on well-organized sections alone.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

67%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 explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, and positions it clearly against its companion skill. Its main weakness is trigger-term quality: natural phrases a user would actually say are sparse, replaced by project-internal jargon (drydock, C5 sediment pass) that limits discoverability outside the originating project.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger phrases users would say, e.g. "Use when writing or editing CLAUDE.md, CONTEXT.md, specs, tickets, or skill files" — the body lists the five surfaces but the description only says "the five surfaces" without naming them.

Replace or gloss the project-internal jargon ("drydock seed generation", "launch C5 sediment pass") with plain-language equivalents so the mandatory triggers are meaningful to readers outside the project.

State the rule actions in plain concrete verbs (e.g. "give every rule an observable pass/fail test and a stated reason") instead of compressed idiom like "one meaning in one home".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("documents agents consume") and several concrete rule-actions ("every rule checkable and carrying a why, steps before reference, one meaning in one home, no restating what the environment already says"), but the actions are stated in compressed idiosyncratic idiom rather than plain concrete verbs, leaving minor gaps in coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both what ("Writing-time discipline for documents agents consume") and when ("Mandatory at drydock seed generation and the launch C5 sediment pass; opt-in for any other agent-facing doc edit") are explicitly stated, but the 'when' triggers are project-internal concepts rather than concrete phrases a general user would say, so they could be more specific.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Some relevant natural terms appear ("specs, tickets", "agent-facing doc edit") but common variations users would say (CLAUDE.md, README, documentation, skill file) are absent, and the description leans heavily on opaque project jargon ("drydock seed generation", "launch C5 sediment pass").

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche and explicitly distinguishes its companion ("that one disciplines code, this one disciplines papers"), but the broad "opt-in for any other agent-facing doc edit" scope creates minor overlap risk with general document-editing skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode
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.