CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

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.

Quality

64%

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

70%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.

A well-sequenced, highly actionable conversational workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops at every stage. Its weaknesses are length-driven: repetitive announce/inform framing inflates token cost, and the monolithic single-file layout forgoes progressive disclosure despite ~380 lines of content.

Suggestions

Cut the 'Announce intention to...'/'Inform them that...' meta-framing and state each instruction once — e.g., the artifact-creation instructions repeat 'initial structure with placeholders' verbatim, and the brainstorming step states the 5-20 range twice in the same section.

Split the claude.ai manual Reader Testing branch into a references file (e.g., references/manual-reader-testing.md) since it only applies in one environment, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview of the three stages with one-level-deep pointers.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is procedural rather than educational (no concepts Claude already knows are re-explained), but it carries noticeable padding: 'Announce intention to...'/'Inform them that...' framing throughout, near-verbatim duplication ('Inform them that the initial structure with placeholders for all sections will be created' appears twice), and brainstorm instructions stated twice within the same section ('brainstorm [5-20] things...' then 'Generate 5-20 numbered options').

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: specific question counts (5-10 clarifying questions, 5-20 brainstorm options), concrete curation examples ('Keep 1,4,7,9', 'Remove 3 (duplicates 1)', 'Combine 11 and 12'), and explicit edit discipline ('Use str_replace to make edits (never reprint the whole doc)'). Minor gaps remain, e.g., 'use the appropriate integration' and sub-agent invocation without an example prompt.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The three-stage sequence is clearly ordered with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: stage exit conditions ('Sufficient context has been gathered when questions show understanding'), a per-section gap check, a quality-check trigger ('After 3 consecutive iterations with no substantial changes'), a near-completion full-document review, and a reader-testing loop that explicitly loops back to refinement for problematic sections.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single 380-line monolithic file with no bundle files at all. In-file header structure is good and easy to navigate, but content that clearly belongs in separate reference files is inlined — notably the full claude.ai manual-testing branch and per-stage scripts — which a reader only needs in some sessions.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

42%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 the workflow's shape through its three named stages but reads as process summary rather than capability description. It lacks any 'Use when' trigger guidance and the natural vocabulary users would use to request co-authoring help, substantially weakening discoverability.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause such as: 'Use when the user asks to write or draft a document, proposal, PRD, design doc, decision doc, RFC, or spec, or wants help structuring a substantial piece of writing.'

Replace stage-name listing with concrete capabilities, e.g., 'gathers context through clarifying questions, brainstorms and curates section content, drafts and iteratively refines each section, and tests the finished doc with a fresh-context reader to catch blind spots.'

Include the natural user phrases users would actually say ("write a doc", "draft a proposal", "flesh out this spec") as trigger terms rather than only the skill's internal stage terminology.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('collaborative document creation') and lists three process stages (Context Gathering, Refinement & Structure, Reader Testing), but omits the concrete capabilities the workflow actually performs (drafting sections, brainstorming options, iterative editing), matching the anchor for naming a domain with 1-2 concrete actions rather than comprehensive coverage.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (a structured three-stage co-authoring workflow), but the 'when' is missing — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Only the generic keyword 'collaborative document creation' plus internal stage names appear; natural user phrases like 'write a doc', 'draft a proposal', 'PRD', 'design doc', 'spec', or 'RFC' are entirely absent, so users asking for this skill would not naturally match it.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Collaborative document creation' is somewhat specific and the Reader Testing stage gives it a recognizable niche, but the broad 'document' scope means it could still overlap with any general doc-writing skill, matching the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor.

3 / 5

Total

11

/

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

plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/doc-coauthoring/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.