CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

daily

Documentation and capabilities reference for Daily

Quality

50%

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 ./skills/daily/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%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 delivers concrete, mostly actionable Pipecat guidance — real code fragments, named classes, and six coherent step-by-step workflows — but it is a monolithic ~290-line catalog with significant redundancy across its Capabilities/Skills/Integration/Context sections and no validation checkpoints in its workflows. It functions as compressed documentation rather than a lean skill that assumes Claude's intelligence.

Suggestions

Cut the redundancy: the Capabilities, Skills, Integration, and Context sections repeatedly enumerate the same providers and features (STT/TTS/LLM vendor lists appear three times). Consolidate to one pass and drop vendor tallies that add tokens without actionable content.

Move the per-service provider catalogs and deployment details into reference files (e.g., references/providers.md, references/deployment.md), keeping SKILL.md as an overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links — the single llms.txt link is a good start but not sufficient for a catalog this size.

Add explicit validation/verification checkpoints to the workflows — e.g., in the deploy workflow, verify the bot connects and responds before scaling; in the interruption workflow, define pass/fail criteria for the speech-pattern tests and a tuning loop back to step 1 when they fail.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Provider-name enumerations ("30+ text-to-speech providers including OpenAI, Google Cloud, ElevenLabs...", "50+ AI services") and feature catalogs repeat across the Capabilities, Skills, Integration, and Context sections, largely restating what the linked docs already cover. Matches anchor 2 ("Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections"); not 1 because it avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows and includes framework-specific detail.

2 / 5

Actionability

Concrete code blocks (Pipeline([...]), llm.register_function, class CustomProcessor(FrameProcessor)) and specific workflow steps with real APIs and parameters ("Set preserve_recent_messages", "VADUserTurnStartStrategy", "pipecat cloud deploy command") give mostly executable guidance with minor gaps — snippets lack imports and there is no complete end-to-end example. Matches anchor 4; not 5 due to those gaps, not 3 because guidance is concrete rather than pseudocode.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six numbered workflows have clear, coherent sequences, but verification is implicit at best ("Test with various speech patterns", "Monitor logs") — no validate-then-proceed gates or error-recovery feedback loops in any workflow. Matches anchor 3 ("Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit").

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent), and the ~290-line body inlines provider catalogs and integration lists that belong in separate reference files, though with good section headers and one clearly signaled external pointer ("For additional documentation and navigation, see: https://docs.pipecat.ai/llms.txt"). Matches anchor 3 ("Some structure... content that could be separate is inline"); not 4 because SKILL.md is the full catalog rather than an overview pointing to detailed materials.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

28%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 vague file-type label rather than a capability statement: it names no concrete actions, includes no use-when triggers, and surfaces none of the skill's actual vocabulary (Pipecat, voice agents, telephony). The mismatch between "Daily" (one transport) and the body's actual subject (Pipecat) further weakens triggering. This is close to the rubric's bad-example pattern ("Helps with documents").

Suggestions

Rewrite the description to state concrete actions plus an explicit trigger clause, e.g.: "Build real-time voice and multimodal AI agents with Pipecat: pipelines, STT/TTS/LLM integration, function calling, turn-taking, and telephony deployment. Use when the user mentions Pipecat, voice assistants/bots, Daily, WebRTC voice, phone agents (Twilio/Telnyx), or building speech-to-speech applications."

Include the natural trigger terms users would actually say (pipecat, voice assistant, voice bot, phone agent, turn-taking, WebRTC) — currently none of them appear, so the skill will not surface for the conversations it targets.

Fix the naming mismatch: the description says "Daily" but the body documents Pipecat (with Daily as merely one transport). Align the description with the actual subject to reduce conflict risk with a hypothetical Daily-specific skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Documentation and capabilities reference for Daily" names a domain but lists no concrete actions — it says what the file is, not what it does. Matches anchor 2 ("Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic"); not 1 because a specific product is named, not 3 because there are zero concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

There is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance (capping completeness at 3), and the "what" itself is vague. Matches anchor 2 ("Has a vague 'what' and no 'when'") exactly; not 3 because "documentation and capabilities reference" describes the artifact, not a clear capability.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Only "Daily" is a natural trigger term; "Documentation", "capabilities", and "reference" are generic. None of the vocabulary users would actually say (pipecat, voice assistant, voice bot, WebRTC, phone agent) appears, despite dominating the body. Matches anchor 2 ("One or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say").

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Distinctiveness rests solely on the product name "Daily" in the generic template "Documentation and capabilities reference for X", which overlaps with any product-doc skill; moreover "Daily" is just one transport in a body that is actually about Pipecat, creating mismatch risk. Matches anchor 3 ("Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills").

3 / 5

Total

9

/

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

skills/daily/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.