CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

oh-my-ppt-source-reading

Source-document reading workflow for Oh My PPT. Read before generating slides from reference documents or retrieved snippets.

Quality

78%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./resources/skills/oh-my-ppt-source-reading/SKILL.md
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.

The body is an instruction-only skill with genuinely executable guidance: concrete tool calls, a worked example, an explicit retry loop, and clear precedence rules for conflicts. Its one real weakness is redundancy — the anti-fabrication and page-completeness rules are each restated three to four times across sections, which inflates token cost without adding information. Consolidating those rules into a single Evidence-rules section would push conciseness toward the top anchors.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated anti-fabrication rule (stated in workflow step 8, Evidence rules, the thin-material section, and Output discipline) into one authoritative location and cross-reference it.

Deduplicate the "keep the page full / feels complete and balanced" guidance, which appears three times in the thin-material section alone.

Consider moving the worked Example and the thin-material expansion guidance into a reference file to keep SKILL.md under ~50 lines and sharpen progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is imperative and assumes Claude's competence (no basic-concept explanations), but key rules are repeated across sections: "do not invent exact facts/metrics/dates/names" appears in workflow step 8, Evidence rules, the thin-material section, and Output discipline, while "keep the page full / feels complete and balanced" recurs three times. This is noticeable tightening potential (anchor 3) rather than minor over-explanation (anchor 4).

3 / 5

Actionability

The guidance is fully executable: exact tool signatures with parameter semantics ("grep(pattern, path, glob)" with "pattern is a literal string, not a shell regex"), concrete line-range budgets ("Prefer 50-80 lines around grep matches"), and a worked example with real calls ("read_file(path=\"/source.md\", offset=118, limit=60)") covering the common case. This matches the copy-paste-ready, common-cases-covered anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The reading workflow is an explicitly numbered 8-step sequence with a refine-and-retry feedback loop ("refine search terms and repeat grep -> targeted read"), explicit conflict-resolution checks (trust the inspected passage over the snippet; source vs. outline vs. user instruction precedence), and failure handling for missing facts (omit or state qualitatively). This matches anchor 5's explicit validation steps with error-recovery loops; it is not a destructive or batch operation, so no cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single self-contained file with no bundle directories and clear, well-ordered section headers (Boundary, When to use / not to use, workflow, Evidence rules, discipline sections) with accurate internal cross-references ("see 'When the inspected material is thin'"). At ~85 lines with the worked example and thin-material guidance inlined, it fits anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps) rather than the under-50-line exception for a 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

65%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 has an explicit and well-targeted use-when clause tied to a specific product, making it clearly triggerable and distinct. Its main weakness is specificity: it never states what the workflow actually does, only when to invoke it. Adding 2-3 concrete actions and common synonyms (presentation, PPT, deck) would raise it substantially.

Suggestions

Add 2-3 concrete capability verbs to the what-clause, e.g. "Locates, reads, and verifies facts in source documents via targeted grep/read_file before slide generation".

Include common user synonyms such as "presentation", "PPT", or "deck" alongside "slides" to broaden natural trigger coverage.

Make the when-clause enumerate concrete trigger conditions (e.g., "Use when sourceDocumentPaths are provided or the task must preserve facts and metrics from a reference document") rather than a single scenario.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Source-document reading workflow" names the domain but lists no concrete actions — there are no verbs describing what the skill actually does (e.g., grep, read, verify, extract facts). It sits at anchor 2 rather than 3 because "generating slides from reference documents" describes the triggering context, not an action this skill performs.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are answered: what ("Source-document reading workflow for Oh My PPT") and an explicit when ("Read before generating slides from reference documents or retrieved snippets"). Not anchor 5 because the what is terse — no capability list — and the when names only one trigger scenario rather than concrete trigger phrases.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say are present — "generating slides", "reference documents", "retrieved snippets", plus the product name "Oh My PPT" — but common synonyms like "presentation", "PPT", "deck", or "source material" are missing. Good coverage with a few natural terms absent matches anchor 4, above anchor 3 because the missing variations do not undermine the core triggers.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is scoped to a named product ("Oh My PPT") with distinct triggers (source documents, retrieved snippets), giving it a clear niche. It scores 4 rather than 5 because "reading workflow" plus "reference documents" could still overlap with generic document-analysis or research skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

arcsin1/oh-my-ppt

Path

resources/skills/oh-my-ppt-source-reading/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.