Tessl • The package manager for agent skills

SkillPublic

caio-review

/cs:caio-review <plan> — Eval-demanding Chief AI Officer interrogation of any plan that involves AI: model selection, risk classification, cost economics, or AI hiring. Use when shipping an AI feature without an eval set, choosing between API, fine-tune, and self-hosted, or classifying a use case under the EU AI Act.

Quality

85%

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

Quality

Content

82%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.

The body is a dense, high-signal interrogation script: six questions with concrete thresholds, an executable workflow, a copy-paste output template, and routing. Its weaknesses are operational: the workflow's three commands reference scripts absent from the bundle with undefined JSON input shapes, and the Related section's cross-references all resolve to nothing.

Suggestions

Bundle the three referenced Python scripts (model_buildvsbuy_calculator.py, ai_risk_classifier.py, ai_cost_economics.py) under the skill's own scripts/ directory, or inline their decision logic, so the Workflow commands are runnable from this skill's location.

Define the expected shape of use_case.json and workload.json (or point to where they are defined) so the workflow commands are copy-paste executable rather than illustrative.

State how script outputs feed the six questions — e.g., a checkpoint after risk classification ('if PROHIBITED, stop and re-scope before proceeding to cost economics') — to close the sequence gap between the questions and the Workflow block.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Every section carries project-specific judgment Claude cannot infer — '50-100 representative inputs minimum', 'breakeven typically 1-10B tokens/month for 70B-class', the AI engineer vs ML engineer vs research scientist distinctions — with no filler explaining known concepts. Lean and efficient.	5 / 5
Actionability	The Workflow block gives three concrete python commands and the Output Format template is copy-paste ready, but the commands point to '../../../c-level-advisor/skills/chief-ai-officer-advisor/scripts/*.py' which do not exist in this bundle, and the use_case.json / workload.json input shapes are never defined. Mostly executable with gaps, not fully executable as shipped.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A numbered 3-step script sequence, per-question decision rules ('PROHIBITED → cannot launch in EU; re-scope'), and a verdict gate (🟢/🟡/🔴) give clear sequence with most checkpoints present. Minor gaps: no stated ordering between the six questions and the three scripts, and no re-check loop after script output.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A well-sectioned single file at reasonable length with clearly labeled Related references one level deep. However, every referenced external path (the advisor skill scripts, ../../agents/cs-caio-advisor.md, the adjacent chief-data-officer skill) is broken in this bundle, and no scripts/ or references/ directories ship with the skill — minor organization gaps.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

83%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 strong description: it explicitly states both capabilities and use-when triggers in natural language, with a clear CAIO niche. The only weakness is breadth — 'any plan that involves AI' invites overlap with sibling executive-review skills, and eval discipline is implied rather than stated as a capability.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names concrete capability areas — 'model selection, risk classification, cost economics, or AI hiring' — plus the interrogation action, but eval discipline is only implied by the adjective 'Eval-demanding' rather than stated as an action, leaving minor gaps in coverage.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Eval-demanding Chief AI Officer interrogation of any plan that involves AI: model selection, risk classification, cost economics, or AI hiring') and when ('Use when shipping an AI feature without an eval set, choosing between API, fine-tune, and self-hosted, or classifying a use case under the EU AI Act') with three concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural phrases users would actually say: 'shipping an AI feature without an eval set', 'choosing between API, fine-tune, and self-hosted', 'classifying a use case under the EU AI Act'. A few natural terms (hallucination, TCO, LLM vendor) are missing, matching the 'good coverage, a few terms missing' anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'any plan that involves AI' is broad and overlaps adjacent cs-review skills (CISO, CDO, CFO routing appear in the body), but the EU AI Act, eval-set, and build-vs-buy triggers carve a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 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
relative_links	Relative link issues: 2 suspicious	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Path: c-level-agents/skills/caio-review/SKILL.md
Revision: 19392f7

Reviewed: 11 hours ago

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.

caio-review

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?