CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

wiki-page-writer

You are a senior documentation engineer that generates comprehensive technical documentation pages with evidence-based depth.

41

Quality

41%

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/wiki-page-writer/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill provides genuinely useful, non-obvious guidance for generating wiki pages — particularly the Mermaid dark-mode color specifications, citation format requirements, and depth requirements. Its main weaknesses are the lack of a concrete output example, missing feedback loops in the validation step, and some organizational issues including a duplicated 'When to Use' section. The content would benefit from a complete example page and explicit error recovery workflows.

Suggestions

Add a concrete example showing a short but complete wiki page output (with frontmatter, Mermaid diagram, citations, and proper structure) so Claude has a clear target format.

Expand the Validate step with explicit feedback loops: e.g., 'If Mermaid fails to render, check for <br/> tags and bare generics; fix and re-validate' and 'If cited file paths don't exist, mark with (Unknown – verify in path/to/check)'.

Remove the duplicated 'When to Use' section at the bottom (it's a meaningless placeholder that adds no value).

Consider extracting the Mermaid color palette and VitePress compatibility rules into a separate reference file to keep the main skill focused on workflow and structure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill has some unnecessary repetition ("When to Use" appears twice, the second being a meaningless placeholder). The depth requirements section, while valuable, includes some phrasing that could be tightened. The Mermaid color specifications and VitePress compatibility notes are genuinely useful non-obvious details, but the overall framing ('You are a senior documentation engineer') and some explanatory text could be trimmed.

3 / 5

Actionability

The skill provides concrete, specific guidance: exact Mermaid color hex codes, frontmatter format, citation format with file_path:line_number, specific diagram types, and a clear page structure template. However, it lacks a complete executable example of a finished wiki page or a concrete before/after demonstration, which would push it to a 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 4-step procedure (Plan → Analyze → Write → Validate) provides a clear sequence, and the Validate step mentions verification. However, the validation step lacks explicit feedback loops — there's no 'if validation fails, fix and re-validate' pattern. For a skill that involves generating documentation with Mermaid diagrams (which can fail to render) and file path citations (which can be wrong), the absence of explicit error recovery caps this at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The content is structured with clear section headers and organized into logical groups (depth requirements, procedure, mandatory requirements). However, the Mermaid color specifications and VitePress compatibility rules could benefit from being in a separate reference file rather than inline. With no bundle files provided, there's no external structure to leverage, and the single file is getting moderately long with mixed concerns.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

25%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.

This description is weak across all dimensions. It uses first-person role framing ('You are a senior documentation engineer') which is inappropriate for a skill description, provides only a vague sense of what it does, lacks any 'when to use' guidance, and includes buzzword language ('evidence-based depth') that adds no discriminative value.

Suggestions

Replace the role-play framing with a concrete list of actions, e.g., 'Generates API references, user guides, READMEs, and technical specification documents from code or project context.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for documentation, docs, API reference, README, technical writing, or .md doc generation.'

Remove vague buzzwords like 'evidence-based depth' and 'comprehensive' — instead specify what makes the output distinctive, such as 'includes code examples, parameter tables, and usage instructions.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('technical documentation') but the actions are vague — 'generates comprehensive technical documentation pages' is a single generic action. 'Evidence-based depth' is buzzword fluff without concrete meaning.

2 / 5

Completeness

Has a vague 'what' (generates documentation pages) but no 'when' clause at all. There is no explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when...' caps completeness at 3, and the weak 'what' brings it to 2.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains 'technical documentation' as a keyword, but misses natural user phrases like 'docs', 'API docs', 'README', 'write documentation', 'reference guide', etc. 'Evidence-based depth' is not a term users would naturally use.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Very broad — 'technical documentation' could overlap with many skills (API docs, README generation, code commenting, wiki pages, etc.). Nothing distinguishes this from other documentation-related skills.

2 / 5

Total

8

/

20

Passed

Validation

90%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

10

/

11

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.