CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

executing-plans

Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints

59

Quality

68%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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, actionable process skill with explicit checkpoints and error-recovery loops, appropriate for a self-contained single-file skill; its main weaknesses are minor redundancy and validation specifics deferred to the plan.

Suggestions

Remove or sharpen the redundant 'Remember' and 'When to Use' sections to push conciseness toward 5.

Strengthen workflow_clarity by stating one concrete verification expectation inline (e.g., 'each task's plan specifies a verification command — run it and stop if it fails') instead of fully deferring.

Replace the vague 'When to Use' sentence with a concrete trigger matching the frontmatter (e.g., 'Use when handed a written implementation plan to execute across batches with review checkpoints').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean bullet-point instruction that assumes Claude's competence, but the closing 'Remember' section repeats earlier points and 'When to Use' adds a vague sentence ('applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview'), fitting 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

It gives concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill (verbatim announcements like "Ready for feedback.", a named REQUIRED SUB-SKILL, exact per-task steps), but defers verification specifics to the plan, fitting 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequence has explicit batch-level checkpoints ('Ready for feedback.' then wait) plus feedback loops ('When to Stop and Ask for Help', 'When to Revisit Earlier Steps'), but the actual validation content is delegated to the plan ('Run verifications as specified'), a minor validation gap that fits score-4 over the fully-explicit-validation score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single self-contained file with well-organized sections and one clearly-signaled one-level reference ('REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch'); no bundle files exist to split further, but the weak redundant 'When to Use' section keeps it at 'Good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than score 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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 has an explicit, fairly specific 'Use when...' trigger and a recognizable niche, but the 'what' is thin and trigger-term coverage lacks common synonyms, leaving it solid but not exemplary.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions to the 'what' (e.g., 'load, review critically, execute in batches, and report for review') to lift specificity toward 5.

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users say ('execute', 'follow', 'carry out', or 'implement this plan') and the plan/checkpoint vocabulary.

Tighten the 'what' so it clearly enumerates the skill's behavior rather than relying on 'execute' as a single catch-all verb.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('written implementation plan') and two concrete actions ('execute', 'review checkpoints'), but does not enumerate what execution entails, matching the 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' anchor rather than the multi-action score-4 anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

An explicit 'Use when...' clause gives a concrete 'when', and 'execute a written implementation plan...with review checkpoints' gives a 'what', but the 'what' is light on specifics, fitting the 'Has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific' anchor rather than the fully-specified score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'implementation plan', 'execute', and 'review checkpoints' are relevant natural terms, but common synonyms a user might say ('follow this plan', 'carry out', 'implement') are missing, fitting the 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger ('written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints') carves a clear niche, but it could overlap with adjacent planning/execution skills, fitting 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than the minimal-conflict score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.