CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

bmad-editorial-review

Deprecated — forwards to bmad-review

45

Quality

48%

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/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 dense, well-specified forwarding contract with concrete actionable steps and a clear sequence, slightly let down by a lack of section structure and a few parenthetical explanations that could be trimmed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is information-dense forwarding logic where nearly every clause carries necessary specification (lens ordering, field pass-through rules, output table shape); only minor explanatory asides like the empty-value rationale could be trimmed, fitting 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation'.

4 / 5

Actionability

It gives concrete, executable guidance — invoke bmad-review with named lenses, forward a named list of fields, emit a specific '| Pass | Original Text | Revised Text | Changes |' table — with only minor gaps like exact invocation syntax, matching 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear (structure then prose, pass fields, present legacy-shaped findings) with explicit conditionals for single-lens cases; this forwarding task is non-destructive so no validation checkpoint is required, fitting 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

As a short under-50-line shim with no external references needed, it is self-contained and appropriately scoped; it loses a point only because the guidance sits in a single un-sectioned paragraph rather than well-organized sections.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

21%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 honest about being a deprecated shim but scores poorly because it provides only a vague action, no trigger guidance, and high overlap with the skill it forwards to.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger phrase so Claude knows when (if ever) this skill should activate instead of bmad-review.

Clarify the 'what' concretely, e.g. 'Forwards bmad-editorial-review requests to bmad-review using the structure and prose lenses'.

Reduce conflict risk by stating this is a legacy alias and bmad-review should be invoked directly where possible.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 'Deprecated — forwards to bmad-review' names the target skill and a single minimal action (forwarding) but offers no further concrete capabilities, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'.

2 / 5

Completeness

It gives a vague 'what' (forwards to bmad-review) and has no 'when'/trigger guidance at all, matching the anchor 'Has a vague what and no when'; the missing 'Use when...' clause caps it well below 3.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It contains only internal plumbing terms ('Deprecated', 'forwards to bmad-review') that a user would never naturally utter when they need this skill, matching the 'No natural keywords; only technical jargon' anchor.

1 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming a specific target (bmad-review) makes it somewhat distinct, but as a thin shim it overlaps heavily with bmad-review itself, fitting 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.

3 / 5

Total

8

/

20

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
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.