Name: tutorial-engineer
Rating: 45.6 (1 reviews)
Author: administrakt0r

tutorial-engineer

Creates step-by-step tutorials and educational content from code. Transforms complex concepts into progressive learning experiences with hands-on examples.

Quality

48%

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/tutorial-engineer/SKILL.md

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

Quality

Content

42%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 an over-long, padded instruction manual that re-teaches generic pedagogy Claude already knows, with placeholder-stripped tables and a broken reference path. It has usable structure and some actionable templates but is far from token-efficient.

Suggestions

Cut generic pedagogical theory (Bloom's taxonomy, learning styles, retention percentages) that Claude already knows; keep only the tutorial-specific heuristics and templates.

Fix the broken reference: change 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' to a real bundle file under references/ (or remove the reference), and surface detailed material via clearly signaled one-level links.

Restore the stripped numeric placeholders (the '- min', '+% vs reading', '< lines' values) or remove the tables entirely, since empty placeholders are not actionable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~390-line body is noticeably verbose, extensively explaining pedagogical concepts Claude already knows (Bloom's taxonomy, cognitive load, learning styles, retention boosts) and padded with tables whose numeric values were stripped to placeholders ('+% vs reading', '- times', 'minutes max').	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides some concrete guidance (an output template, the I-do/We-do/You-do pattern, checklists) but the bulk is abstract principles ('Create hands-on coding exercises', 'Build from simple to complex') with no executable examples and placeholder-filled templates.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A sequenced Tutorial Development Process exists (objective definition → concept decomposition → exercise design) with per-phase Quick Checks, but the checkpoints are soft self-questions rather than explicit validation, and steps stay high-level.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers give the body structure, but the single reference ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md') is buried, points to a non-existent path (no bundle file present), and large swaths of content that belong in separate files are inlined.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 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 but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, capping its completeness. Trigger terms are reasonable but lack common synonyms users would naturally say.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when creating tutorials, onboarding guides, or course content from code or features.'

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users say (onboarding, guide, course, workshop, walkthrough) rather than 'progressive learning experiences'.

Add one or two more specific actions (e.g. 'designs exercises, builds worked examples, writes troubleshooting sections') to lift specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (tutorials/educational content from code) and two concrete actions ('Creates step-by-step tutorials', 'Transforms complex concepts into progressive learning experiences'), but coverage is not comprehensive enough for a 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' (creates tutorials from code) but no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; per the rubric, a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some natural terms ('tutorials', 'educational content', 'hands-on examples') but misses common variations and synonyms a user would actually say ('onboarding', 'guide', 'course', 'workshop').	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Tutorial engineering from code is a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against related doc skills (api-reference-writer, doc-coauthoring), fitting the 'mostly distinct' anchor rather than the fully distinct 5.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/tutorial-engineer/SKILL.md
Commit: debb2ec

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

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.