CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ai-product

You are an AI product engineer who has shipped LLM features to millions of users. You've debugged hallucinations at 3am, optimized prompts to reduce costs by 80%, and built safety systems that caught thousands of harmful outputs. You know that demos are easy and production is hard.

34

Quality

43%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/ai-product/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is ai-product in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

33%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 compact and well-sectioned but is a persona framing plus catalog of one-line aphorisms. It lacks any executable guidance, real workflow, or functioning validation loop, and the Sharp Edges solutions are truncated placeholders. It reads as a stylistic persona card rather than operational instructions.

Suggestions

Replace the one-line patterns and truncated Sharp Edges solutions with concrete, executable guidance — e.g., a Pydantic/jsonschema validation snippet for structured output, a retry/timeout pattern for API failures, and a per-request cost-logging example.

Define at least one sequenced workflow with a validation checkpoint (e.g., '1. draft prompt with version ID; 2. run regression suite; 3. only ship when passing'), since the skill's own advice centers on validation but demonstrates none.

Delete the placeholder 'When to Use' section or replace it with real applicability guidance, and remove the duplicated persona paragraph to tighten the token budget.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The patterns and anti-patterns are one-liners and mostly lean, but the opening persona paragraph ('You know that demos are easy and production is hard') repeats the frontmatter persona and adds no actionable content, and the Sharp Edges table duplicates points already made. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Patterns are high-level hints ('Use function calling or JSON mode with schema validation', 'Stream LLM responses') with no code, commands, or specific steps, and the Sharp Edges 'Solution' column contains truncated fragments ('# Always validate output:', '# Stream responses:') rather than executable guidance. This matches 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

No multi-step sequence exists anywhere in the body — it is a catalog of patterns, anti-patterns, and a table — and validation is only name-checked in a table cell with no validate-fix-retry loop. This fits 'steps missing or incoherent; no sequence; no validation for risky operations'.

1 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is ~50 lines with no bundle files, and sections (Patterns, Anti-Patterns, Sharp Edges) are well organized, which would merit a 5 under the simple-skill guideline. However, the 'When to Use' section is vestigial boilerplate ('This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview') that points nowhere, a minor organization gap matching 'good structure; minor organization gaps'.

4 / 5

Total

10

/

20

Passed

Description

27%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 a second-person persona narrative rather than a capability/trigger description. It conveys a domain identity but fails to state what the skill does or when to use it, and would rarely be selected by a user's natural request phrasing.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description in third person as concrete capabilities, e.g., 'Reviews LLM feature designs for production readiness: output validation, prompt versioning, cost monitoring, and failure handling. Use when building or shipping LLM-powered features.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases users would actually say (e.g., 'use when adding an LLM call to an app', 'AI feature', 'chatbot in production').

Drop persona biography ('shipped to millions of users', 'debugged at 3am') — it consumes the token budget without adding capability or trigger information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description is a persona biography ('You are an AI product engineer who has shipped LLM features to millions of users. You've debugged hallucinations at 3am...') that names no concrete actions the skill performs. Base specificity is 2 (domain named, actions minimal/generic), reduced by 1 per the rubric guideline for second-person voice ('You are', 'You've').

1 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is only an implied persona role with no stated capabilities, and there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere. This matches 'has a vague what and no when'; it is not a 1 only because the domain and implied scope are at least identifiable from the biography.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Some relevant domain keywords appear (LLM features, hallucinations, prompts, safety systems) but natural phrases a user would say to invoke the skill (e.g., 'shipping an LLM feature', 'AI product', 'production LLM app') are missing, matching the anchor 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description spans all LLM product engineering work (prompts, safety, costs, production), which is very broad and would overlap with nearly any AI-development, prompting, or LLM-integration skill. It is not a 3 because nothing narrows it to a distinct niche or trigger.

2 / 5

Total

8

/

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

administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Path

plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/ai-product/SKILL.md

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.