nano-pdf
Edit PDFs with natural-language instructions using the nano-pdf CLI.
63
52%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
81%
2.61xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/nano-pdf/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 concise and identifies the core domain (PDF editing) and tool (nano-pdf CLI), but it lacks specificity about what editing operations are supported and completely omits a 'Use when...' clause. Without explicit trigger guidance and more concrete action descriptions, Claude would struggle to reliably select this skill from a large pool.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause specifying trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to edit, modify, annotate, or manipulate PDF files.'
List specific concrete actions the skill supports, e.g., 'Add, remove, or reorder pages, insert text or images, merge PDFs, fill form fields.'
Include natural keyword variations users might say, such as '.pdf files', 'modify PDF', 'update a PDF', 'change PDF content'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (PDFs) and a general action (edit), and mentions the specific tool (nano-pdf CLI), but does not list multiple concrete actions like extracting text, filling forms, merging, etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (edit PDFs) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also quite thin, bringing this to a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'PDFs' and 'edit' which are natural terms, but misses common variations like '.pdf files', 'modify PDF', 'update PDF', 'PDF editing', or specific operations users might request. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'nano-pdf CLI' adds some distinctiveness and the focus on editing PDFs is reasonably specific, but 'edit PDFs' could overlap with other PDF-related skills that also handle modification tasks. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, well-structured skill that efficiently communicates the core usage of nano-pdf. Its main weakness is limited actionability—only one example command and vague validation guidance. For a tool that modifies PDFs, a concrete verification step (rather than just 'sanity-check') would strengthen the workflow.
Suggestions
Add 1-2 more example commands showing different edit types (e.g., adding text, removing elements, modifying images) to improve actionability.
Replace the vague 'sanity-check the output PDF' with a concrete verification step, such as opening the file or using a specific command to confirm the edit was applied correctly.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Very lean and efficient. Every line serves a purpose—no explanation of what PDFs are or how CLI tools work. The notes are practical and non-obvious (0-based vs 1-based page numbering gotcha). | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The example command is concrete and copy-paste ready, but there's only one example covering a single use case. Missing details like installation, error handling, supported edit types, or what happens with multi-page edits reduce completeness. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'sanity-check the output PDF' note is a validation hint but is vague—no concrete verification step (e.g., open the PDF, diff pages, use a specific command). For a tool that destructively modifies PDFs, an explicit validation checkpoint would be expected to score 3. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references. The content is well-organized with a quick start section and concise notes, which is appropriate for its scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
72%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 8 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 8 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- attilaczudor/Test
- Commit
b4fc4af
- 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.