conductor-validator

Validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness. Use after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation to verify project context.

1.39x

Quality

60%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

96%

1.39x

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-validator/SKILL.md

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

Quality

Content

57%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 short and supplies real executable commands plus useful marker/ID patterns, but it conflates 'listing files' with 'validating' them and lacks the validation/feedback loop that a verification skill demands. A broken reference path and generic boilerplate sections hold it back further.

Suggestions

Turn the file listings into actual validation steps with checkpoints: for each required file, check existence and report missing ones; then verify track IDs against the <type>_<name>_<YYYYMMDD> pattern and surface mismatches before proceeding.

Fix or remove the dangling reference — there is no resources/ directory; either create references/implementation-playbook.md or drop the pointer.

Replace the boilerplate 'Use/Do not use' and generic 'Instructions' sections with Conductor-specific guidance (e.g., what 'consistency' means between tracks.md and the track directories).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean with no heavy concept-explanation padding, but the auto-generated 'Use/Do not use this skill when' sections and generic 'Instructions' ('Clarify goals... Apply best practices...') add boilerplate that earns little, keeping it at mostly-efficient.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable shell commands ('ls -la conductor/', the required-files list) and copy-pasteable marker and track-ID patterns with an example, but it stops at listing files rather than showing how to actually check correctness/consistency against those patterns.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough sequence exists (check dir -> find tracks -> check required files) but there are no validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops, and for a skill whose entire purpose is validation the rubric caps this dimension at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is sectioned with headers and is short, but the single external reference ('resources/implementation-playbook.md') points at a path that does not exist in the bundle, so navigation is partially broken rather than clearly signaled.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 cleanly states what the skill does and when to use it with a clear, third-person voice and a specific domain, scoring solidly above average. Its main weakness is that the actions are framed as abstract qualities rather than concrete operations and the trigger phrases omit the natural nouns a user would actually say.

Suggestions

Replace abstract quality words ('completeness, consistency, and correctness') with concrete validation actions, e.g. 'Checks that conductor/index.md, product.md, tech-stack.md, workflow.md, and tracks.md exist and that track IDs match the <type>_<name>_<YYYYMMDD> pattern.'

Add natural noun-based trigger phrases users would say, such as 'Use when the user mentions their Conductor project, tracks, or wants to check project setup.'

Tighten the 'when' clause to pair each condition with the concrete artifact it targets so the trigger is unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the Conductor domain and concrete validation dimensions ('completeness, consistency, and correctness') but treats actions as abstract qualities rather than listing specific validation operations, so it sits at the domain-plus-1-2-actions level rather than comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (validates artifacts for completeness/consistency/correctness) and 'when' (after setup, diagnosing issues, before implementation); the 'when' is explicit but not tied to the concrete noun trigger phrases that would push it to 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some natural trigger phrases ('after setup', 'diagnosing issues', 'before implementation', 'verify project context') but misses the common noun variations and synonyms a user would actually say ('Conductor', 'tracks', 'check my Conductor project').	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The Conductor-project-artifacts niche is fairly specific and mostly distinct from generic validation/review skills, with only minor overlap risk; it lacks the razor-sharp concrete triggers of the top anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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-validator/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 3 days 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.