CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

readme-generator

Use whenever the user wants to create, rewrite, or improve a README.md for a GitHub/GitLab repo, project, library, CLI tool, app, or package. Trigger on "write me a README", "make a README for this repo", "improve my project's README", "make my repo/GitHub page look professional", or requests for repo docs, project landing content, or quickstart docs. Also trigger when the user pastes project details, a package.json/pyproject.toml, or a repo link and asks for docs. Interviews the user with targeted questions, offers 4 distinct visual/structural README designs to pick from, researches any related or inspirational projects named, and produces a polished, SEO-optimized, beginner-friendly README.md with a full table of contents, working anchor links, badges, and a real quickstart. Not for generic blog posts or non-repo documentation.

Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%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.

A well-built skill body: a clearly sequenced interview-driven workflow with highly actionable, specific guidance, and an exemplary progressive-disclosure structure that keeps templates and mechanics in two well-signaled one-level-deep reference files. The small deductions are for motivational padding in the intro and the absence of an explicit post-draft validation loop for anchor links and placeholders.

Suggestions

Trim or fold the 'Why the interview matters' section into a single directive sentence (e.g. 'Always interview first — the interview is what distinguishes this output from a generic template') to save tokens without losing the behavioral rule.

Add an explicit validation step between draft and deliver: 'Before delivering, verify every TOC link resolves using the slug rules in references/seo-and-structure.md and confirm no placeholder or fabricated value (badges, stars, install commands) remains.'

Remove editorial asides like 'the kind that make a project look alive, trustworthy, and easy to try in under 60 seconds' and 'This is the single highest-leverage section in the whole README', keeping only the operative instruction (press for a real quickstart example, never a placeholder).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely efficient, actionable instruction (exact files to scan, exact tools, grouped question lists), but contains minor trimmable padding: the 'Why the interview matters' paragraph ('A README has about 8 seconds to convince a visitor...') and editorial asides like 'the kind that make a project look alive, trustworthy, and easy to try in under 60 seconds' explain motivation Claude doesn't need. This fits the level-4 anchor (efficient, minor instances of over-explanation) better than 5, since a few tokens don't earn their place, and better than 3, since there is no unnecessary concept explanation.

4 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: exact scan targets ('package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod...'), named tools ('web_fetch', 'web_search', shields.io), a copy-pasteable grouped question list, four concretely described design options, and specific universal requirements (H1 with keyword tagline, TOC with exact slug rules, alt text format '![Descriptive alt text](url)'). Exact mechanics are deliberately and cleanly delegated to two reference files marked 'required reading before writing, every time', which covers the common cases rather than leaving gaps — matching the level-5 anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five-step sequence (silent scan → batched interview → research → draft → deliver) is clearly ordered with per-step gating ('Skip any question you already answered in Step 1', 'Only ask about what's genuinely missing'), and Step 5 includes a placeholder-verification checkpoint ('summarize... what's still a placeholder... so nothing fake ends up shipped by accident'). However, there is no explicit post-draft validation loop (e.g. 're-check every TOC link against the slug rules before delivering'), so it matches level 4 (clear sequence, most checkpoints, minor validation gaps) rather than level 5 (explicit validation steps with feedback loops). No destructive/batch cap applies.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The ~100-line body is a genuine overview: workflow and interview content inline, with both detailed materials split into real, one-level-deep reference files (references/design-styles.md, 313 lines; references/seo-and-structure.md, 64 lines — both exist, no deeper nesting beyond a sibling cross-reference). References are well signaled with purpose statements ('full template + section order + tone notes for all 4 designs'; 'GitHub anchor-link slug rules, TOC construction, badge syntax, and SEO mechanics') and explicit read triggers. The only inline duplication (short summaries of the 4 designs in Step 2B) is justified because the user must see the options to choose. This matches the level-5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

An exemplary description: it states concrete capabilities in third person, provides verbatim natural-language trigger phrases with synonyms and file names, explicitly covers both what and when, and closes with a boundary clause excluding non-repo documentation. The only nitpick is mild marketing flavor ('polished, SEO-optimized'), which is backed by concrete deliverables and does not rise to fluff.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, comprehensive actions in third person: 'Interviews the user with targeted questions, offers 4 distinct visual/structural README designs to pick from, researches any related or inspirational projects named, and produces a polished... README.md with a full table of contents, working anchor links, badges, and a real quickstart.' This matches the level-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage) and exceeds level 4 because coverage of the skill's behavior is complete, not just 'several actions with minor gaps'.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (interview, offer 4 designs, research related projects, produce a README with TOC/anchors/badges/quickstart) and 'when' ('Use whenever the user wants to create, rewrite, or improve a README.md... Trigger on... Also trigger when the user pastes project details...') are answered explicitly with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the level-5 anchor. The 'Use when' clause is present, so the completeness cap of 3 does not apply.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes natural user phrases verbatim ('write me a README', 'make a README for this repo', 'improve my project's README', 'make my repo/GitHub page look professional') plus synonyms ('repo docs', 'project landing content', 'quickstart docs') and file extensions/names (README.md, package.json, pyproject.toml). This matches the level-5 anchor including synonyms and file extensions; level 4 ('a few natural terms missing') doesn't apply since common variations are explicitly covered.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (README.md for GitHub/GitLab repos, projects, libraries, CLI tools, apps, packages) with distinct triggers, and it adds an explicit exclusion — 'Not for generic blog posts or non-repo documentation' — that minimizes conflict with general documentation skills. This fits the level-5 anchor (clear niche, distinct triggers, minimal conflict risk) rather than level 4, which would require residual overlap with closely related skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

administrakt0r/pro-skills-repo-administraktor

Path

skills/writing-skills/readme-writing-skill/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.