CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

blog-writing-guide

This skill enforces Sentry's blog writing standards across every post — whether you're helping an engineer write their first blog post or a marketer draft a product announcement.

56

Quality

65%

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-claude/skills/blog-writing-guide/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is blog-writing-guide in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 strong, opinionated, example-rich style guide that gives Claude concrete good/bad models across openings, headings, titles, and post types. Its main weakness is redundancy — the intro and three recap sections restate earlier content — which costs token efficiency without adding new guidance.

Suggestions

Remove the verbatim repeat of the description in the intro paragraph, or replace it with a one-line pointer to the frontmatter; the same applies to overlapping items in the Non-Negotiables quick reference that merely restate earlier sections.

Collapse the Technical, Editorial, and Final review checklists into a single consolidated checklist, deduplicating items already covered in the banned-language, opening, and title sections.

Consider splitting the post-type table and the full banned-language list into a reference file (e.g. references/post-types.md, references/banned-language.md) and linking from the body, which would improve progressive disclosure toward the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with proprietary, non-obvious standards (voice, banned phrases, post-type bylines), but it repeats the description nearly verbatim in the intro and stacks three recap layers (Non-Negotiables, Technical/Editorial/Final review checklists) that restate earlier content, so it is mostly efficient but could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill, the guidance is highly concrete: explicit good/bad openings, strong/weak heading pairs, model title examples, a banned-phrase list, and a post-type table with bylines — copy-paste-ready examples covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

There is a clear numbered writing structure (Follow the Reader's Questions 1–6) and ordered review checklists (Technical, Editorial, Final), but no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop; this is not a destructive/batch skill so the cap does not apply, fitting 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single, well-organized file with clean section headers and no nested or buried references (no bundle files exist); however, the 'well-signaled one-level-deep references' of the top anchor is not met because there are no external references at all.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

56%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 clearly conveys a Sentry-specific niche and includes natural trigger terms, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause and leans on a single generic verb, with a second-person phrasing that further lowers specificity. Adding a concrete trigger clause and tightening the action language would lift completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when writing, drafting, or reviewing a Sentry blog post — engineering deep dives, product launches, postmortems, tutorials, or research posts.'

Replace the generic verb 'enforces' with concrete actions the skill performs (e.g. 'Reviews, edits, and guides draft blog posts against Sentry's voice, structure, and technical standards').

Rephrase the second-person 'whether you're helping...' in third person (e.g. 'Applies to both first-time engineer authors and marketer-drafted announcements') to avoid the specificity penalty.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Sentry's blog writing standards') and a couple of scenarios ('helping an engineer write their first blog post', 'a marketer draft a product announcement'), but the core action ('enforces... standards') is generic; additionally the second-person phrasing 'whether you're helping' triggers the rubric's one-point specificity penalty, dropping a base 3 to 2.

2 / 5

Completeness

It states a clear 'what' ('enforces Sentry's blog writing standards across every post') but offers no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause — only scenario framing — so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing terms are present ('blog writing', 'blog post', 'product announcement'), giving good coverage, though common synonyms like 'article', 'draft', or 'copy' are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Sentry-specific blog niche is clearly distinct from generic skills, with only minor overlap risk against broad content/writing skills, fitting the 'mostly distinct' anchor.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation15 / 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
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.