CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

grade-iterate

Phase 3 of building a Claude Managed Agent — the bounded grade→iterate loop. Define a CMA outcome (a required markdown rubric graded by an isolated grader), read each verdict, decide the next move (sharpen / re-run / promote to schedule), and once a version passes, run held-back eval cases in parallel. Use when the user says "grade my agent", "make it pass the rubric", "iterate until it's good", "is it good enough", or when the orchestrator routes phase=grade-iterate. outcome_builder.py builds the user.define_outcome payload (rubric required, max_iterations clamped 1..20 — never unbounded); verdict_reader.py reads the grader result and recommends the next move; eval_scaffold.py generates held-back cases + a parallel run plan (capped at the 25-thread CMA ceiling). Distinct from stage-launch (first launch) and run-without-you (scheduling).

72

Quality

90%

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

The canonical home for this skill is grade-iterate in alirezarezvani/claude-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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-structured, highly actionable body: numbered workflow with executable commands, explicit validation/escalation checkpoints, and a useful forcing-question library. Weaknesses are minor — repeated cap statements, one inconsistently-specified command (goal_state.py), and references that point outside the provided bundle.

Suggestions

State the max_iterations cap once canonically (e.g., in Workflow step 1) and keep only the Hard-rules reminder — the Tools list repetition of 'rubric required, cap 1..20' is trimmable.

Give goal_state.py the same full invocation form as the other scripts (path prefix and flags) and add it to the Tools list so all commands are copy-paste ready.

Replace the abstract 'append to the running session' with a concrete example of how the user.define_outcome event is sent, or point to the skill/reference that defines it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean: a 5-step workflow with inline commands, short hard-rules, and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable redundancy keeps it below anchor 5: the cap "rubric required, max_iterations clamped to 1..20" is stated in Workflow step 1, Hard rules ("No outcome without a max_iterations cap"), and the Tools list; the ≤25-thread ceiling is likewise stated twice.

4 / 5

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready bash commands with real flags for all three scripts ("python3 scripts/outcome_builder.py --sheet ./my-agent/build-sheet.json --max-iterations 5 --out …") and a concrete SHIP/SHARPEN/ESCALATE/RESUME decision table. Minor gaps: "goal_state.py set --phase run-without-you" lacks the path prefix the other commands carry and is missing from the Tools list, and "Send the payload as a user.define_outcome event (append to the running session)" gives no concrete mechanism — anchor 4's 'concrete code or commands with minor gaps'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear 5-step sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint ("Read every verdict first"), a loop invariant enforcing measurable progress ("each iteration must move ≥1 rubric line fail→pass, or the run halts at the cap and escalates"), error-recovery guidance ("With ≤1 iteration left it flips to 'make the single highest-value fix or escalate now'"), and a terminal decision step. Full feedback loop with escalation paths — anchor 5.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: an overview body with clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference links ([../../references/loops-and-workflows.md], [../../references/cma-primitives.md]) and per-script detail pushed to scripts. Scored against the actual bundle structure, no bundle files are present (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so the referenced paths cannot be verified and the links point two directories up outside the skill — a minor organization gap that keeps it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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: concrete multi-action capability statement, explicit natural-language trigger phrases, and deliberate disambiguation from sibling phases. Dense but not padded — every clause carries information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes: "Define a CMA outcome (a required markdown rubric graded by an isolated grader)", "read each verdict, decide the next move (sharpen / re-run / promote to schedule)", "run held-back eval cases in parallel", plus per-script functions ("outcome_builder.py builds the user.define_outcome payload… clamped 1..20"). Multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the skill's scope; not anchor 4, which requires minor gaps in coverage — none found.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is fully specified (define outcome, read verdicts, decide next move, run held-back eval) and the "when" is an explicit "Use when the user says…" clause with four concrete trigger phrases. Matches the anchor-5 example pattern exactly; no weakly implied when-clause that would drop it to 4.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-phrase triggers: "grade my agent", "make it pass the rubric", "iterate until it's good", "is it good enough", plus the orchestrator routing trigger "phase=grade-iterate". These are phrases a user would naturally say when needing this skill, covering the grade/iterate/quality-bar semantic space comprehensively for this niche.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicitly states "Distinct from stage-launch (first launch) and run-without-you (scheduling)", and the triggers (grading, rubric iteration, held-back eval) form a clear niche. Minimal conflict risk with sibling skills; the deliberate disambiguation puts it above the anchor-4 'minor overlap risk' example.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 suspicious

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 6 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Path

.gemini/skills/grade-iterate/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.