Tessl • The management layer for AI agent skills

SkillPublic

documentation

Documentation generation workflow covering API docs, architecture docs, README files, code comments, and technical writing.

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

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/documentation/SKILL.md

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

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 skill provides a clear, well-sequenced orchestration map over eight documentation phases with concrete sub-skill invocation prompts, but it is padded with redundant per-phase boilerplate, offers almost no substantive guidance beyond naming sub-skills, and keeps everything inline with no progressive disclosure of detail. Validation exists only as a detached end checklist rather than integrated per-phase checkpoints.

Suggestions

Collapse each phase to a single block: the skill list, the copy-paste prompt(s), and one line of phase intent — drop the 'Actions' steps that merely restate the phase title (e.g. Phase 5's 'Create README' under 'README and Getting Started').

Integrate validation into the workflow: after each phase, reference the relevant Quality Gate(s) (e.g. 'After Phase 2, confirm all APIs documented before proceeding') instead of a detached end checklist.

Move the 'Documentation Types' catalog and per-phase skill rosters into reference files (e.g. references/doc-types.md, references/skill-index.md) linked from SKILL.md, so the main file is a lean overview with one-level-deep navigation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is list-form and scannable rather than prose-heavy, but each of the eight phases repeats a boilerplate 'Skills to Invoke' list, an 'Actions' list of trivially inferable steps (e.g. '1. Create README 2. Write getting started guide 3. Document installation'), and 'Copy-Paste Prompts' that largely restate the skill invocations — noticeable tightening possible, matching 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' more than anchor 2's padded prose.	3 / 5
Actionability	The copy-paste prompts ('Use @api-documenter to generate API documentation') are concrete invocations, but the workflow's substance is delegation-only: the 'Actions' steps ('Identify documentation needs', 'Choose documentation tools', 'Plan documentation structure') are high-level directions with no templates, examples, or criteria for what good output looks like — concrete guidance present but incomplete, matching anchor 3.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The eight phases are clearly sequenced (planning through maintenance) and a 'Quality Gates' checklist exists, but the gates are decoupled from the phases — there is no per-phase checkpoint telling Claude to verify gates before moving on, so validation is present yet implicit, fitting 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body has consistent section structure, but no bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and ~260 lines are inlined monolithically — the 'Documentation Types' catalog and per-phase skill rosters are content that could live in reference files, matching 'some structure but could be better organized' rather than anchor 4's appropriately split content.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

61%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 gives a clear, domain-specific 'what' with several natural trigger terms, but it lacks any 'when to use' trigger clause, relies on a single generic action verb, and misses synonyms for sub-areas the body actually covers (wikis, changelogs, tutorials). It is solid but sits below the strong examples, which pair capabilities with an explicit 'Use when...' sentence.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to write or update documentation, generate API docs or README files, produce architecture diagrams, or add code comments.'

Use more concrete action verbs per deliverable (e.g. 'generates API reference docs from code, writes READMEs and getting-started guides, produces C4/mermaid architecture diagrams') instead of a single 'covering' clause.

Include the sub-areas the body actually handles — wikis, changelogs/release notes, tutorials, onboarding guides — and common synonyms like 'docs' to improve trigger term coverage and distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Documentation generation workflow covering API docs, architecture docs, README files, code comments, and technical writing" names the domain and enumerates five concrete deliverable types, but uses only one real action verb ("generation") — closer to the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' than anchor 4's multiple distinct actions, and it also omits body-covered areas like changelogs and wikis, so coverage is not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated (generating API docs, architecture docs, READMEs, code comments, technical writing), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3 ('clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied').	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural user phrases like "API docs", "architecture docs", "README files", "code comments", and "technical writing" are present and would be said verbatim, but common variations such as "docs", "user guides", "tutorials", "changelog", "wiki", and file-extension forms are missing — matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The documentation-generation niche is mostly distinct with clear anchors (API docs, README, architecture docs), though the breadth across five sub-domains creates minor overlap risk with single-purpose skills like a README generator or code-comment skill — fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than anchor 5's clearly minimal conflict.	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/documentation/SKILL.md
Revision: 64adc55

Reviewed: 16 hours ago

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.

documentation

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?