audience-aware-communication

Use this skill when writing any explanation, documentation, or response that will be read by someone else. Match vocabulary, depth, and format to the audience's expertise level before writing.

Quality

76%

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 ./memory_data/skills/audience-aware-communication/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is a tight, well-organized instruction set that respects token budget and gives a clear assess-then-adapt workflow for a simple skill. Its main gap is actionability: the rules are abstract principles without a concrete worked example.

Suggestions

Add one short before/after example showing the same content rewritten for a beginner vs an expert audience to make the adaptation rules concrete.

Turn a couple of abstract principles into imperatives with concrete tactics, e.g. 'replace acronyms with the expanded term on first use' instead of 'avoid acronyms'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is a lean checklist with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude doesn't already handle; every line is a directive, so every token earns its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	Rules like 'define terms, use analogies, avoid acronyms' and 'lead with the executive summary, put details in sections' are directive, but they are abstract principles with no concrete before/after example, so guidance is actionable yet incomplete.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	For a simple single-purpose skill it lays out a clear assess-then-adapt sequence (Questions to ask -> Adaptation rules) plus an anti-pattern, with no risky or batch operations requiring validation checkpoints.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no external references needed, it is organized into well-signaled sections (Questions to ask, Adaptation rules, Anti-pattern) that satisfy the simple-skill bar for progressive disclosure.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 both what the skill does and when to use it with an explicit trigger, but its named actions are abstract and its scope is broad enough to risk overlap with other writing skills. It is solid and functional but not maximally specific or distinctive.

Suggestions

List concrete actions the skill performs (e.g. 'define terms, add analogies, restructure into headers and bullets, lead with a summary') instead of the abstract 'Match vocabulary, depth, and format'.

Tighten the trigger with natural, narrower phrasing and common variations, e.g. 'Use when writing docs, tutorials, release notes, or replies for readers of unknown expertise'.

Narrow the scope so it distinguishes from general writing skills, e.g. add 'when the audience's expertise level is unknown or mixed'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('writing any explanation, documentation, or response') and some actions ('Match vocabulary, depth, and format'), but the actions are abstract meta-instructions rather than the multiple concrete actions (e.g. 'Extract text and tables...fill forms...merge') that anchor a 3.	2 / 3
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what ('Match vocabulary, depth, and format to the audience's expertise level') and when ('Use this skill when writing any explanation...that will be read by someone else') with an explicit trigger clause.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'explanation, documentation, or response' are natural user terms, but the set is broad and generic with no common variations or concrete artifact keywords, so coverage is incomplete versus a 3.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The audience-matching angle is a recognizable niche, but the scope ('any explanation, documentation, or response that will be read by someone else') is broad enough to overlap many writing-related skills.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 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: aiming-lab/MetaClaw
Path: memory_data/skills/audience-aware-communication/SKILL.md
Commit: 922caf3

Reviewed: 9 days 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.