draft-response

Draft a professional customer-facing response tailored to the situation and relationship. Use when answering a product question, responding to an escalation or outage, delivering bad news like a delay or won't-fix, declining a feature request, or replying to a billing issue.

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./customer-support/skills/draft-response/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

63%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 well-structured and actionable, with concrete templates, a clear multi-step workflow, and an explicit quality-check checklist. Its weaknesses are verbosity from restating communication principles Claude already knows, and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure into reference files.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Customer Communication Best Practices' and 'Tone and Style Guidelines' sections (empathy, active voice, avoiding jargon like 'synergy') to a concise bullet list — Claude already knows these principles and they consume significant tokens.

Move the five full 'Response Templates for Common Scenarios' into a separate references/ file (e.g. TEMPLATES.md) and link to it from the body, giving the skill a clear overview with one-level-deep references.

Collapse the duplicate guidance between the 'Situation-Specific Approaches' bullet lists and the full templates — pick one form per scenario to remove redundancy.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~400-line body extensively restates professional communication principles Claude already knows ("Lead with empathy", "Be direct", active voice, avoid "synergy"/"leverage"), which is unnecessary explanation, though it is well-organized rather than rambling.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete draft templates with labeled fields, a validation checklist, iteration prompts, channel-specific length guidance, and five full scenario templates, though they use placeholder brackets rather than being fully copy-paste ready.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear five-step sequence (Understand → Research → Generate → Quality Checks → Offer Iterations) with an explicit validation checklist, but lacks an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop since the task is generative rather than fragile.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and all content — including situation-specific templates and tone/style guidelines that could stand as separate references — is inlined in a single ~400-line file, though section headers provide reasonable organization.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 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.

The description is strong: it explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete, natural trigger phrases across multiple customer-communication scenarios. The main gap is specificity — a single verb ("Draft") rather than a list of distinct actions — and minor overlap risk with general communication skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and core action ("Draft a professional customer-facing response tailored to the situation and relationship") with several situation-specific capabilities implied, but uses a single verb rather than a comprehensive list of distinct actions.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both "what" (draft a professional customer-facing response) and "when" with concrete trigger phrases in a clear "Use when..." clause.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural phrases users would say ("answering a product question", "responding to an escalation or outage", "delivering bad news", "declining a feature request", "replying to a billing issue") with good synonym coverage, though some variations (renewal, refund, churn) are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Has a clear niche (customer-facing response drafting) with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, though a generic email/communication drafting skill could create minor overlap.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 1 suspicious	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins
Path: customer-support/skills/draft-response/SKILL.md
Commit: 8444efc

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

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.