CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

requirements-analysis

Analyze product and technical requirements for the PigeonPod project with software engineering rigor. Use when users ask to evaluate a feature, enhancement, non-functional requirement, integration, or migration for value, feasibility, architecture fit, implementation impact, risk, delivery scope, or tradeoffs. Do not use for bug triage or root-cause analysis; use `bug-analysis` for bugfix-oriented work. Always inspect current repository docs and code first, then use MCP tools including Context7 to verify external library, framework, or API constraints before concluding.

77

Quality

96%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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 concise, highly actionable analysis framework with a clear sequenced workflow and a final verification checklist. Its only weakness is progressive disclosure: everything lives in one inline file with no references to split-out detail, which is acceptable for a methodology skill but leaves the heaviest sections in the main context.

Suggestions

Move the eight-item 'Evaluate With These Dimensions' list and/or the full markdown output template into a reference file (e.g. references/evaluation-framework.md) and link to it from the body, so the SKILL.md stays a lean overview.

If splitting out references, signal them with explicit one-level-deep links (e.g. 'See [evaluation-framework.md](references/evaluation-framework.md) for the full dimension checklist') to match the progressive-disclosure score-3 anchor.

Add a brief inline summary of the dimensions while delegating the detailed per-dimension questions to the reference, preserving discoverability without duplicating the full content inline.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it gives workflow steps, file paths, commands, dimensions, and an output template without explaining concepts Claude already knows, so every section earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable — specific repository paths to read, runnable `rg` discovery commands, a copy-paste-ready markdown output template, and a defined decision vocabulary — satisfying the actionable-instruction bar despite the absence of code (allowed by the code-vs-instruction scoring note).

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

An explicit 8-step workflow provides a clear sequence, and the 'Quality Bar' section acts as a verification checklist before finalizing; because this is analysis rather than a destructive/batch operation, the missing-inter-step-validation cap at 2 does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is well-organized into clear sections (so above the monolithic-wall anchor at 1), but it is a single >50-line file with all content inline — the eight evaluation dimensions and the full output template could be split into reference files, and no one-level-deep bundle references are signaled as the score-3 anchor requires.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%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 is specific, complete, and well-scoped: it names concrete capabilities, provides explicit use/non-use triggers in natural language, and distinguishes itself from the adjacent bug-analysis skill. No first/second-person voice issues. This is a strong description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete analysis actions — evaluating features, enhancements, integrations, and migrations across value, feasibility, architecture fit, impact, risk, and tradeoffs — matching the 'multiple specific concrete actions' anchor rather than the partial-coverage anchor at 2.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly states both what it does ('Analyze product and technical requirements...') and when to use it ('Use when users ask to evaluate...'), plus an explicit anti-trigger ('Do not use for bug triage...'), satisfying the both-what-and-when anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when users ask to evaluate a feature, enhancement, non-functional requirement, integration, or migration...' phrasing covers natural terms a user would actually say, with good breadth across the requirement types and evaluation axes.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to PigeonPod requirements analysis and explicitly hands off bug work to `bug-analysis`, giving it a clear niche unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
aizhimou/pigeon-pod
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.