CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

skills-qa

Evaluate a skill against the Legal Skill Design Framework — thirteen design parameters (including trust-surface, freshness, schema validation, and conflict detection), three legal failure modes, and a three-band verdict (Ready / Some Concern / Material Concerns). Use when deciding whether to trust a community skill before installing it, before deploying a first-party skill to your team, or whenever the user asks "should I trust this?" or "is this skill well-designed?". Runs automatically as part of /legal-builder-hub:skill-installer.

71

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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 thorough, well-sequenced QA methodology with strong actionability and workflow clarity, including explicit gating checkpoints and concrete templates. Its main weaknesses are verbosity with duplicated sections and a monolithic structure that underuses progressive disclosure via bundle files.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicated 'Inputs accepted' section (it appears near both the header and the Purpose section) and consolidate overlapping Notes/Purpose prose to cut roughly 10-15% of the body.

Extract the detailed 13-parameter definitions and the 10-category injection-scan catalog into reference files under references/ (e.g. design-parameters.md and injection-scan.md), leaving SKILL.md as a concise overview that links one level deep.

Move the full verdict-tier definitions and the REFUSE output template into a verdicts.md reference so the main body stays lean while preserving the copy-pasteable refusal text.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is accurate and domain-specific (not explaining concepts Claude already knows), but at ~685 lines it is verbose with real redundancy — 'Inputs accepted' appears twice (lines 17-22 and 52-60), the Notes and Purpose sections overlap, and the REFUSE blockquote is written out and then re-explained. Not the lowest anchor because the content is substantive rather than padded filler, but it could be tightened considerably.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, specific, actionable guidance: ten enumerated injection-scan categories each with exact phrases to flag, explicit 'Flag 🔴/⚠️/🟡 if' criteria per parameter, and a copy-pasteable output template with a parameter table. As an instruction-only skill the absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is fully actionable.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced workflow (Step 1 → 1.5 → 2 → 2.5 → 3 → 4 → 5) with explicit gating checkpoints — the injection scan forces verdict downgrades and unaddressed legal failure modes force Material Concerns — plus checklists for the 13 parameters, the 10 scan categories, and the legal failure mode checkboxes. The destructive/batch cap does not apply to this QA skill.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clearly organized, but the skill is a single ~685-line monolithic file with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle files; content that could be split out (detailed parameter explanations, the full injection-scan catalog, the output template) is inline. Matches the 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' anchor rather than the top anchor requiring well-signaled one-level-deep references.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

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 exemplary: it names concrete capabilities, provides explicit natural-language triggers, answers both what and when, and is written in third person with a distinctive niche. No improvements needed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'Evaluate a skill against the Legal Skill Design Framework — thirteen design parameters (including trust-surface, freshness, schema validation, and conflict detection), three legal failure modes, and a three-band verdict' — matching the anchor for enumerating specific actions rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (evaluate a skill against the framework with named parameters and verdict bands) and 'when' via an explicit 'Use when deciding whether to trust...' clause with directly quoted triggers, satisfying the top anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user would actually say — 'should I trust this?', 'is this skill well-designed?', 'before installing it', 'before deploying a first-party skill to your team' — giving good coverage of natural trigger terms.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche — QA evaluation of legal skills against a named design framework — with distinct triggers and third-person voice, making overlap with other skills unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (700 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
anthropics/claude-for-legal
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.