CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

doc-coauthoring

This skill provides a structured workflow for guiding users through collaborative document creation. Act as an active guide, walking users through three stages: Context Gathering, Refinement & Structure, and Reader Testing.

56

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/doc-coauthoring/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is doc-coauthoring in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%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 well-sequenced, highly actionable instruction-only workflow with strong validation gates and feedback loops. Its main weakness is mild verbosity from repeated announcement/restatement phrasing; progressive disclosure is sound for a single-file skill though it could optionally factor out detailed procedures.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient procedural detail for a genuinely complex branching workflow, but it carries noticeable repetition (repeated 'Announce intention to...' phrasing and restated 'Inform them that the initial structure...will be created' steps) that could be tightened, fitting anchor 3; not 2 because the detail is largely purposeful rather than padded concept explanation.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete procedural guidance with specific counts (5-10 questions, 5-20 brainstorm options), explicit tool calls (create_file, str_replace), and worked curation examples ('Keep 1,4,7,9', 'Remove 3 (duplicates 1)'); code absence is not penalized for an instruction skill, fitting anchor 4 with minor gaps from templated [SECTION NAME] placeholders.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Three stages are clearly sequenced with numbered steps, explicit per-stage exit conditions, transition prompts, a quality-check checkpoint after three idle iterations, and a reader-testing validation gate with a feedback loop back to refinement, matching anchor 5's explicit validation and feedback-loop criteria.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the single SKILL.md is organized into clear stage/step headers with no nested references and coherent as one workflow, fitting anchor 4; not 5 only because at ~380 lines some detailed per-section procedures could optionally be split into references, though it is not strictly necessary.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 states what the skill does and names a distinctive three-stage workflow, but it omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance and lacks the natural trigger phrases users would actually say. This caps completeness and keeps trigger-term quality at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to write, draft, or co-author a doc, proposal, spec, PRD, design doc, decision doc, or RFC.'

Surface natural trigger terms (write a doc, draft a proposal, PRD, design doc, RFC) in the description itself rather than only in the body's 'When to Offer This Workflow' section.

Replace generic verbs ('guiding', 'walking users through') with concrete capabilities (e.g. 'gathers context, drafts sections iteratively, and reader-tests the document') to lift specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('collaborative document creation') and three stages (Context Gathering, Refinement & Structure, Reader Testing), but the verbs are generic ('guiding', 'walking users through') rather than concrete capabilities like 'extract/fill/merge', matching anchor 3; not 4 because no list of several specific concrete actions is given.

3 / 5

Completeness

A clear 'what' is present ('structured workflow... three stages'), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance; the rubric caps completeness at 3 in that case, matching anchor 3 exactly.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'collaborative document creation' is a relevant domain keyword, but the natural phrases users actually say ('write a doc', 'draft a proposal', 'PRD', 'design doc') appear only in the body, not the description, leaving common variations and synonyms missing per anchor 3.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The three-stage reader-testing co-authoring workflow is a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against generic writing skills, fitting anchor 4; not 5 because some overlap with general drafting/writing skills remains.

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.