timeboxed-iterating

Use when the user specifies a task and a duration, and the work should be done iteratively by subagents over that time period

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/timeboxed-iterating/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is highly actionable with a clear, well-validated workflow, but it is verbose in reiterating its anti-premature-exit message and monolithic with no progressive disclosure to separate reference files. Conciseness and progressive disclosure are the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated 'clock decides' messaging: keep the Iron Law statement and a trimmed premature-exit table, and fold redundant rows (e.g., the several 'check the clock' variations) into a single principle to recover token budget.

Move the longer supporting material (the premature-exit/sabotage tables, the subagent prompt template, and the stall-recovery details) into a referenced file such as references/anti-exit-patterns.md, leaving SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is operational and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'clock decides, you don't' message is restated across the Iron Law section, a 12-row table, a bold closing line, and the Red Flags, which could be tightened without losing force.	2 / 3
Actionability	It provides executable commands (`date +%s`), concrete file paths, and copy-paste-ready templates for the progress file, iteration entries, the final summary, and the subagent prompt, matching the 'fully executable, copy-paste ready' anchor.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A 6-step numbered process with a flow diagram, an explicit checkpoint (time check before every dispatch), feedback loops (stall recovery, repetition scanning), and a Red Flags checklist match the 'clear sequence with validation and feedback loops' anchor; the batch operation has verification, so it is not capped at 2.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a well-sectioned single file but is monolithic at ~190 lines with no bundle files or external references, exceeding the under-50-line simple-skill exception; content such as the premature-exit table and templates is inline rather than split into referenced files.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

75%

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, well-formed trigger and a distinctive niche, but the 'what' is stated as an abstract mechanism rather than concrete actions and the trigger vocabulary is narrow. It clears completeness and distinctiveness while leaving specificity and trigger-term coverage room to improve.

Suggestions

Add one or two concrete example actions or task types (e.g., 'improve test coverage', 'refactor code', 'build out a spec') so the 'what' reads as specific actions rather than the generic 'the work'.

Broaden trigger vocabulary with natural duration phrasings users actually say, such as 'for 4 hours', 'overnight', or 'spend 90 minutes on this'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the core mechanism ("done iteratively by subagents over that time period") but describes "the work" abstractly and lists no concrete actions, falling short of the multi-action anchor at 3 while staying above the vague anchor at 1.	2 / 3
Completeness	It explicitly answers when ("Use when the user specifies a task and a duration") and what (run work iteratively via subagents over a duration) with an explicit trigger clause, satisfying the 'clearly answers both what AND when' anchor and avoiding the missing-trigger cap of 2.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"task", "duration", and "time period" are natural keywords a user might say, but common variations like "for X hours", "overnight", or "90 minutes" are absent, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combination of a user-specified duration plus iterative subagent execution is a clear niche with a distinct trigger unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: av/harbor
Path: .agents/skills/timeboxed-iterating/SKILL.md
Commit: ed20a18

Reviewed: about 13 hours 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.