CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

futuristic

Forward-looking design with tech-inspired typography, modern layouts, and a sleek, innovation-driven aesthetic.

55

Quality

62%

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 ./skills/futuristic/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

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

The content is a tight, well-structured instruction skill with concrete design tokens, a clear sequenced authoring workflow, and explicit quality-gate validation criteria. Its main weakness is actionability: rules and component expectations remain abstract without a worked example of actual generated guideline output.

Suggestions

Add one short worked example showing a finished component guideline (e.g. a Button with anatomy, states mapped to tokens, and an accessibility acceptance criterion) so the abstract rules become copy-paste ready.

Tighten the abstract Do/Don't rules by anchoring each to a token or threshold (e.g. replace 'avoid low contrast text' with 'maintain ≥4.5:1 contrast for body text using text/burface tokens').

Fill or remove the empty '## Brand' section so the structure has no gaps that could confuse generation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a lean set of short bullet points and section headers that assumes Claude's competence and does not pad with concepts Claude already knows, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

It provides concrete scaffolding (token hex values, font names, a 4/8/12/16/24/32 spacing scale, a 7-part output structure, a required-states list) but the Do/Don't rules and component expectations stay abstract ('preserve visual hierarchy', 'avoid ambiguous labels') with no worked example of actual guideline output, so it is not fully copy-paste ready.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 'Guideline Authoring Workflow' is a clearly sequenced 6-step process and the 'Quality Gates' section supplies explicit, testable validation criteria ('anchor each rule to a token, threshold, or example', 'every accessibility statement must be testable'), matching the clear-sequence-with-checkpoints anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files are present and none are needed; the single-file body is well-organized into clearly labeled sections, which the rubric's simple-skills note allows to score 3 without external references.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

40%

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 reads as a marketing tagline for an aesthetic rather than a capability statement: it names no concrete actions and omits any 'Use when' trigger guidance. It is concise and third-person but too vague and buzzword-heavy to clearly signal when the skill should activate.

Suggestions

Replace aesthetic adjectives with concrete actions, e.g. 'Generates futuristic design-system guidelines with tech-inspired typography and modern layouts.'

Add an explicit trigger clause: 'Use when authoring or applying futuristic/tech-forward design-system guidance, or when the user asks for a futuristic visual style.'

Drop buzzword filler like 'sleek, innovation-driven aesthetic' in favor of natural trigger terms users would actually say ('futuristic UI', 'tech aesthetic', 'modern design system').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase 'Forward-looking design with tech-inspired typography, modern layouts, and a sleek, innovation-driven aesthetic' describes an aesthetic, not concrete actions; there are no verbs or capabilities stated, matching the 'vague or no actions' anchor.

1 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill is about (a futuristic design aesthetic) but provides no 'Use when...' trigger clause, so 'when' is entirely missing; per the rubric a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some natural terms users might say ('futuristic design', 'typography', 'modern layouts') but is padded with buzzword fluff ('sleek, innovation-driven aesthetic') and lacks common variations, sitting above the jargon-only anchor but below good coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'futuristic' niche is somewhat specific, but generic terms like 'modern layouts' and 'aesthetic' could overlap with other design-system skills, so it is not a clearly distinct, conflict-free trigger.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
bergside/awesome-design-skills
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.