ralplan
Consensus planning entrypoint that auto-gates vague ralph/autopilot/team requests before execution
62
42%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
99%
1.30xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/ralplan/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is heavily jargon-laden and fails to communicate concrete actions, natural trigger terms, or explicit usage guidance. It reads like an internal implementation note rather than a description designed to help Claude select the right skill. The lack of a 'Use when...' clause and absence of user-facing language severely limits its effectiveness.
Suggestions
Replace jargon like 'auto-gates' and 'entrypoint' with concrete action descriptions (e.g., 'Validates and clarifies ambiguous team planning requests before executing automated workflows').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms users would actually say (e.g., 'Use when the user submits a vague or underspecified team planning request, mentions autopilot mode, or asks Ralph to coordinate tasks').
List specific capabilities such as 'prompts for missing details, confirms scope, validates consensus among team members' to make the skill's function clear.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, jargon-heavy language like 'auto-gates' and 'consensus planning entrypoint' without listing any concrete actions the skill performs. It's unclear what specific tasks this skill accomplishes. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is extremely vague ('auto-gates vague requests before execution') and there is no explicit 'when' clause or trigger guidance. Both components are weak or missing. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The terms 'consensus planning entrypoint', 'auto-gates', and 'ralph/autopilot/team requests' are internal jargon that users would not naturally say. There are no natural language keywords a user would use to invoke this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'ralph/autopilot/team requests' and 'consensus planning' provides some domain specificity that would reduce conflicts with generic skills, but the overall vagueness still creates ambiguity about when this skill should be selected versus other planning or gating skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured and highly actionable skill that clearly defines a complex multi-agent consensus planning workflow with proper sequencing, validation checkpoints, and error recovery loops. Its main weakness is length — the pre-execution gate section, while valuable, makes the document quite long and could be split into a referenced file. The content is mostly efficient but has some redundancy in usage examples and explanatory rationale.
Suggestions
Move the Pre-Execution Gate section (gate logic, good/bad prompts table, signal table, troubleshooting) into a separate referenced file like `docs/pre-execution-gate.md` to reduce SKILL.md length and improve progressive disclosure.
Remove the duplicate 'Usage with interactive mode' section — the flag is already documented in the Flags section, so a separate usage block is redundant.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly detailed and covers a lot of ground, but includes some redundancy (e.g., the usage examples are repeated for interactive mode, the gate logic is explained both narratively and via table). Some sections like 'Why the Gate Exists' explain rationale that could be trimmed. However, most content is genuinely instructive rather than explaining things Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete invocation syntax, specific flag definitions, a detailed step-by-step consensus workflow with explicit sequencing constraints, a clear table of gate pass/fail signals with examples, and an end-to-end flow example. The guidance is specific and directly executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The consensus workflow is clearly sequenced (steps 0-8) with explicit validation checkpoints (Critic APPROVE/ITERATE/REJECT verdicts), a bounded re-review loop (max 5 iterations), sequential ordering constraints (steps 3 before 4), and clear feedback loops. The planning/execution boundary is explicitly stated with mutation guards. The troubleshooting table adds error recovery guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files like `docs/company-context-interface.md` and other skills (`oh-my-claudecode:plan`, `oh-my-claudecode:team`, `oh-my-claudecode:ralph`), but the content itself is quite long and monolithic. The gate logic, troubleshooting, and workflow details could benefit from being split into separate referenced documents. No bundle files are provided to verify references. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode
- Commit
3e94567
- 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.