CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

sitemap-task-bias

Use when creating or auditing an agent-team sitemap, Task Bias ledger, concept coverage, product surface map, validation chain, or missing-concept check.

Quality

75%

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 ./.agents/skills/sitemap-task-bias/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 lean, well-structured procedure that scores well on token efficiency and organization. Its weakness is executability: the central artifact — the task bias — is never exemplified, and the ledger record format and any validation checkpoint for the coverage comparison are left unspecified, leaving Claude to improvise the skill's core output.

Suggestions

Add a one-line example of a task bias (e.g. a bias statement that pins a specific concern) so step 3 is executable rather than aspirational.

Specify the JSONL record schema for `.agentlas/validation-ledger.jsonl` (field names for skipped/blocked concepts and the reason).

Insert a checkpoint in the procedure, such as verifying each entry in evidence_files exists before returning results.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

At roughly 25 lines the body is lean and efficient with zero padding — steps like "Record skipped or blocked concepts in `.agentlas/validation-ledger.jsonl`" and the terse Output section assume Claude's competence, with every token earning its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance exists (the six-item concept checklist, the ledger file path, and exact output keys "covered, missing, task_biases, and evidence_files"), but key details are missing: "Add task biases that protect the build from dropping important concerns" gives no example of a task bias and the JSONL ledger record format is unspecified.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-4 are clearly sequenced, but validation checkpoints are absent or only implicit — nothing verifies that evidence files exist or that the missing/covered classification is correct before recording the ledger. This fits the anchor of a present sequence with missing checkpoints; the destructive/batch cap does not apply since the skill appends records rather than mutating state.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist in the bundle), and its two well-organized sections ("## Procedure", "## Output") satisfy the simple-skill criterion for a top score; the lone path mention is an output data file, not a buried reference.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

65%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.

A highly distinctive, trigger-rich description whose "Use when" clause is strong, but which leans almost entirely on the "when" side: it names target artifacts without stating what the skill actually does or produces. Adding a one-clause statement of the skill's function would lift both completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Lead with a 'what' clause before the trigger, e.g. "Checks a request against required concept coverage and returns covered, missing, and task_biases. Use when...".

Name the concrete actions the skill performs (compare, identify gaps, record skips) rather than only the two generic verbs "creating or auditing".

Add one or two natural variations of the trigger terms (e.g. "coverage check", "agent-team map") to broaden keyword coverage without adding jargon.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The only stated actions are "creating or auditing" against a list of named artifacts ("agent-team sitemap, Task Bias ledger, concept coverage, product surface map, validation chain, or missing-concept check"), which names the domain plus 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive action coverage.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "when" is explicit ("Use when creating or auditing...") but the "what" is weakly implied — the description never states the skill performs a concept-coverage comparison or returns covered/missing/task_biases results, fitting the anchor where one half is clear and the other only weakly implied.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "agent-team sitemap", "Task Bias ledger", "concept coverage", and "missing-concept check" are phrases a user working in this project would naturally say, giving good keyword coverage, though no synonyms or variations of these terms are included.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Idiosyncratic artifact names like "Task Bias ledger", "agent-team sitemap", and "validation chain" establish a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

agentlas-ai/Agentlas-OS

Path

.agents/skills/sitemap-task-bias/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.