CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

bmad-editorial-review-structure

Deprecated — forwards to bmad-review.

48

Quality

50%

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

Quality

Content

92%

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

The body is a tightly written forwarding instruction that is concise, actionable, and clear for its single delegation task. Its only weakness is organizational: the guidance is a dense monolithic paragraph rather than a lightly sectioned structure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean: it specifies the delegation target, lens, inputs, output shape, and exact empty-case string with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives fully concrete, executable guidance — the exact skill to invoke ('bmad-review'), the lens ('structure'), the required report sections, and the literal output for the no-issues case — leaving nothing abstract.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

For a simple delegation-and-reformat task the single sequence is unambiguous: invoke the skill with a specific lens, then present results in a defined legacy shape, with an explicit fallback for the empty case.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is short and self-contained with no external references needed, but it is a single unsectioned paragraph with no organizational headings, so it does not meet the 'well-organized sections' bar for a 3.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

7%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is a deprecated forwarding skill whose description does minimal work: it signals deprecation and a redirect but describes no capabilities or use triggers. As a user-facing description it fails the specificity, trigger, and completeness tests.

Suggestions

Add a brief 'Use when...' clause stating the triggering context (e.g., structural/editorial review of a document) so the skill's purpose is explicit.

Name the concrete action the skill performs before forwarding (e.g., 'Reviews document structure for cuts, merges, and condensing') rather than only stating it is deprecated.

Include natural user-facing keywords such as 'document structure', 'editorial review', 'cut and merge' to improve trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 'Deprecated — forwards to bmad-review' states only a forwarding relationship with no concrete actions or capabilities, matching the vague-language anchor.

1 / 3

Completeness

It answers neither what the skill concretely does nor when Claude should use it, and lacks any 'Use when...' clause, which caps completeness below 2.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It contains no natural keywords a user would say when needing this skill; 'forwards to bmad-review' is internal jargon rather than a user-facing trigger term.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming a specific target skill ('bmad-review') gives it a recognizable niche, but the vague phrasing could still overlap with other review-related skills.

2 / 3

Total

5

/

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.