CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

bmad-editorial-review-prose

Deprecated — forwards to bmad-review.

59

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./src/core-skills/v6-shims/bmad-editorial-review-prose/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%

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 exemplar of a deprecated forwarding skill: concise, fully actionable, with a precise output contract and a defined edge case. It assumes Claude's competence and adds no unnecessary context, making every token count for a simple, single-purpose skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a lean two sentences that delegates to another skill and specifies only the legacy output shape, with no concept explanations or padding; every token earns its place, matching the 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor and clearly above the level 2 'could be tightened' case.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete, executable guidance: invoke a named skill with a specific lens, pass through inputs and 'also_consider' areas, and emit an exact three-column table ('| Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |') plus the literal fallback string 'No editorial issues identified'; this matches the fully-executable anchor and is not level 2 because no detail is left as pseudocode.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The single forward-and-format workflow is unambiguous with an explicit fallback output for the no-issues case; per the simple-skill note a single clearly-stated action can score 3, and it is not level 2 because the output contract and edge case are fully specified rather than implied.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple under-50-line skill with no bundle files and no nested references, and its content is cleanly organized into one well-structured block; per the rubric note such skills can score 3 with just well-organized sections, and it avoids any monolithic or multi-level-reference failure mode.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

35%

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 honestly flags deprecation and names the forwarding target, but as a standalone skill description it lacks natural trigger terms, an explicit 'Use when' clause, and any enumeration of the editorial-prose capabilities it fronts. It reads as a maintenance stub rather than a self-contained trigger.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when the user asks for editorial prose review in the legacy three-column format') so the 'when' is explicit.

Surface a natural trigger term like 'editorial prose review' or 'prose review' so users would naturally say it when invoking this skill.

Briefly name the capability being forwarded (e.g., 'editorial prose review') instead of only the forwarding mechanics.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names a concrete action ('forwards to bmad-review') but stops at one abstract operation rather than listing the editorial-review capabilities it fronts, matching the 'Names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' anchor; it is not a 1 because a real action is stated, and not a 3 because no multiple specific actions are enumerated.

2 / 3

Completeness

It answers 'what' (forwards to bmad-review) but provides no explicit 'when/Use when...' trigger guidance, capping completeness at 2 per the rubric guideline; it is not a 1 because the 'what' is present, and not a 3 because the 'when' is entirely missing.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The only terms are 'Deprecated' and 'forwards to bmad-review', which are meta/technical and not natural keywords a user would say when needing editorial prose review; this matches the 'No natural keywords; technical jargon or overly generic' anchor and is not a 2 because no relevant editorial-review terms appear.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Deprecated — forwards to bmad-review' is somewhat specific to the bmad family but its thin description could overlap with other review/forwarding skills; this matches 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap', and is not a 3 because the narrow editorial-prose niche is never surfaced in the description.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD
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.