conductor-status

Display project status, active tracks, and next actions

1.76x

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

99%

1.76x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

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/conductor-status/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is conductor-status in sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

Quality

Content

77%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 highly concrete, well-sequenced reporting procedure with exact parsing rules, calculation logic, and complete output templates including error states and recovery guidance. Its weaknesses are a dangling reference to a nonexistent resources/implementation-playbook.md, a few unspecified derivation details (active-track selection, git history), and generic filler sections that pad the token budget without adding guidance.

Suggestions

Fix or remove the dangling reference to `resources/implementation-playbook.md` — the file does not exist in the bundle, breaking navigation; if detailed examples are needed, create it under references/ with a clearly signaled link.

Specify how to derive the 'Active Track' (e.g. 'the in-progress track with the most recent last-updated date') and how to collect 'Related Commits' (e.g. the git log command and trackId filter) so every output section is fully executable.

Trim the boilerplate 'Use this skill when', 'Do not use this skill when', and generic 'Instructions' sections — they restate the skill name without adding actionable guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient — exact file paths, regex patterns, and a progress-bar formula with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. However, generic filler sections ("Working on conductor status tasks or workflows", "Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") add no information and could be trimmed, matching anchor 4 ('minor instances of over-explanation') rather than anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place.	4 / 5
Actionability	Mostly executable: concrete paths (conductor/tracks/{trackId}/plan.md), executable regexes (/^- \[x\] Task/), an exact progress-bar formula, and complete output/error templates. Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5: how to determine the "Active Track", how to gather "Related Commits" for the git history section, and how to detect "Dependencies on incomplete tracks" are never specified.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequence (Pre-flight Checks → numbered Data Collection → Output) with explicit validation checkpoints (init verification, no-tracks, track-not-found) and feedback loops for error recovery ("If missing: Display error and suggest running /conductor:setup first", plus a track-not-found template listing available tracks). This read-only reporting skill carries no destructive-operation risk, so the validation cap does not apply, and it matches anchor 5.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well organized with clear headers, but the skill's only external reference — "If detailed examples are required, open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`" — points to a file that does not exist in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, assets/, or resources/ directory is present), and ~130 lines of ASCII output templates are inlined that arguably belong in a reference file. This matches anchor 3 ('some structure... references present but not clearly signaled / resolvable') better than anchor 4.	3 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

50%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 communicates a clear 'what' at a serviceable but generic level: it lists three high-level display actions but omits any 'when to use' trigger guidance, common user phrasings, and the tool context (Conductor) that would distinguish it from other status/reporting skills. All dimensions land at the midpoint anchor.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks about Conductor project status, progress, active tracks, or what to work on next" — this would raise both completeness and trigger_term_quality.

Name the tool and domain ("Display Conductor project status...") to reduce conflict risk with generic status or project-management skills.

Mention the concrete capabilities the skill actually has (per-track status, blocker detection, quick one-line and JSON output modes) to increase specificity beyond a single 'display' verb pattern.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Display project status, active tracks, and next actions" names the domain and 2-3 concrete actions, but they are all the same high-level verb pattern (display X) and lack the breadth of the anchor-4/5 examples (which enumerate distinct operations). It is clearly above anchor 2 ('minimal or generic actions') but does not list several distinct specific actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (display project status, active tracks, and next actions), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3, which this description exactly matches.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like "project status", "active tracks", and "next actions" are relevant keywords a user might say, but common variations and synonyms are missing (e.g. "progress", "check status", "roadmap", "what's next", "blockers"). This matches anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations') rather than anchor 4's good-but-incomplete coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Active tracks" is a somewhat distinctive domain marker, but "project status" and "next actions" are generic phrases that could overlap with many project-management or status skills, and the owning tool (Conductor) is never named. It is more specific than anchor 2's 'very broad' but still carries overlap risk, matching anchor 3.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
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-claude/skills/conductor-status/SKILL.md
Commit: 64adc55

Reviewed: 1 hour ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.