CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

prompt-engineer

Transforms user prompts into optimized prompts using frameworks (RTF, RISEN, Chain of Thought, RODES, Chain of Density, RACE, RISE, STAR, SOAP, CLEAR, GROW)

Quality

55%

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/prompt-engineer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

36%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 contains genuinely useful material (framework mapping table, worked examples, quality checklist) but is presented in a damaged, redundant structure: missing workflow steps, orphaned fragments, missing example headers, and a rule stated three times. Its core selection logic is actionable, yet the broken sequence and padding make it both inefficient and partially incoherent to follow as written.

Suggestions

Restore the missing workflow steps: define Step 2 (Clarify) and Step 4 (Generate/Deliver) as proper headers instead of leaving orphaned "4.5" and "4.6" subsections, so the sequence runs 1-2-3-4 coherently.

Remove or repair the orphaned template block after the "Critical Rule" in Step 3 (it begins mid-example with a stray closing code fence), and renumber the examples (Example 1 and 3 are missing, numbering starts at 2 and skips to 4).

Deduplicate the "magic mode" rule (stated in Purpose, Step 3, and the NEVER list) and trim the framework rationale column, and resolve the contradiction between 4.5 (default output to English) and the NEVER rule ("if user writes in PT, respond in PT").

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably padded: the "silent magic mode" rule is stated three times (Purpose, the Step 3 "Critical Rule", and the NEVER list), the framework mapping table expands well-known frameworks Claude already knows (e.g., "RISEN (Role, Instructions, Steps, End goal, Narrowing)"), and there are orphaned, un-introduced example fragments. This matches anchor 2 (several unnecessary explanations or padded sections) rather than 3 (only minor tightening needed).

2 / 5

Actionability

There is concrete guidance (task-type-to-framework mapping table, worked input/output examples, a quality checklist), but key execution details are missing: Step 2 (Clarify) and Step 4 (Generate) are referenced yet never defined, and the template block after "Critical Rule" starts mid-example with a stray closing code fence. Concrete but incomplete matches anchor 3 rather than 4.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section jumps from "Step 1: Analyze Intent" directly to "Step 3: Select Framework(s)"; Step 2 is only inferable from examples and the ALWAYS rules, and Step 4 exists only as orphaned "4.5" and "4.6" subsections. A validation checkpoint exists (the 4.6 checklist), but the sequence itself has many gaps and undefined steps, matching anchor 2 better than 3.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single self-contained file (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) with real section headers (Purpose, When to Use, Workflow, Critical Rules, Examples, Notes), so navigation is possible. However, organization is impaired by the orphaned code fragment, missing Example 1 and 3 headers (numbering starts at 2 and skips to 4), and broken step numbering, matching anchor 3 (some structure but could be better organized) rather than 4.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

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 states a clear single action and a distinctive framework list, but lacks any "when to use" trigger guidance and leans on acronym jargon rather than natural user phrases. It is serviceable but below the quality of the good reference examples.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to improve, rewrite, or create a prompt, or says 'how do I ask AI to...'".

Replace or augment the acronym list with natural phrases users actually say, such as "improve a prompt", "rewrite a prompt", or "make a prompt more effective".

Briefly state what the transformation concretely does (e.g., adds role, structure, constraints, and output format) so the "what" is more than one generic verb.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description gives one concrete action ("Transforms user prompts into optimized prompts"), while the parenthetical list of 12 framework acronyms (RTF, RISEN, Chain of Thought, RODES, ...) names methods rather than actions. It names the domain with a clear core action but is not comprehensive in coverage of what the skill does, matching anchor 3 rather than 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly answers "what" (transforms prompts into optimized prompts using named frameworks) but contains no "Use when..." clause or any explicit trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"user prompts" and "optimized prompts" are relevant keywords users might say, but common natural phrases like "improve my prompt", "rewrite this prompt", or "make this prompt better" are missing, and the acronym list is technical jargon users would rarely use. This fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) better than 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The prompt-optimization niche with an explicit framework list is mostly distinct from other skills, though it could overlap with general writing or AI-assistance skills on the broad term "prompts". Minor overlap risk matches anchor 4; not 5 because no distinct trigger phrases are given.

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.

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/prompt-engineer/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.