plan-harder
Use when user specfically says 'plan harder'.
65
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
22%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is severely incomplete - it only specifies a trigger phrase without explaining what the skill actually does. While 'plan harder' is a distinctive trigger, Claude cannot make an informed decision about using this skill because there's no information about its capabilities or purpose.
Suggestions
Add a clear description of what the skill does before the trigger clause (e.g., 'Creates detailed, multi-step implementation plans with risk analysis and contingencies.')
Expand trigger terms to include natural variations users might say (e.g., 'detailed plan', 'thorough planning', 'comprehensive plan', 'plan in depth')
Restructure to follow the pattern: '[What it does]. Use when [trigger conditions].' to ensure both components are present
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever - it doesn't describe what the skill does, only when to trigger it. 'Plan harder' is not a capability description. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description only addresses 'when' (user says 'plan harder') but completely omits 'what' - there is no explanation of what this skill actually does or what capabilities it provides. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains one explicit trigger phrase 'plan harder' which is specific, but lacks any variations or related natural terms users might say (e.g., 'detailed planning', 'thorough plan', 'comprehensive planning'). | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The specific trigger phrase 'plan harder' is distinctive and unlikely to conflict with other skills, but without knowing what the skill does, it's unclear if it might overlap with other planning-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
92%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-crafted skill with excellent actionability and workflow clarity. The phased approach with explicit validation steps (user input, gotcha review, subagent review) demonstrates strong process design. The main weakness is the inline template which adds length but could reasonably be kept inline for a planning skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is lean and efficient, avoiding explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Every section serves a purpose with no padding or unnecessary context. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific guidance throughout with clear examples (good vs bad task definitions), explicit tool usage (request_user_input), and a complete template that's copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 6-phase sequence (Phase 0-5) with explicit validation checkpoints including user clarification, gotcha identification, and subagent review. Each phase has clear purpose and builds on previous work. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but the plan template is quite long and could be split into a separate reference file. The skill is self-contained but borders on monolithic. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- 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.