CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

bmad-review-verification-gap

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-review-verification-gap/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

96%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 an exemplar of lean, actionable, unambiguous instruction for a deprecated shim — it delegates precisely and specifies exact output for both the findings and empty cases. Its only minor gap is the absence of explicit section structure, which is largely immaterial for such a short skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is four lean sentences with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor where every token earns its place; it stays at 5 rather than 4 because there is no over-explanation to trim.

5 / 5

Actionability

It gives fully executable instruction-only guidance — invoke bmad-review with the verification-gap lens, render markdown only (no JSON), group gap_shape:'other' under a specific heading, and output an exact copy-paste line when empty — matching the fully-executable anchor covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

As a simple single-purpose read-only skill under 50 lines, the simple-skill exception applies; the single action is unambiguous with an explicit conditional branch (findings present vs. none), so it meets the score-5 anchor for clear single-action skills rather than 4.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is appropriately self-contained with a single one-level-deep delegation to bmad-review and no nested references, fitting the good-structure anchor; it scores 4 rather than 5 because the body has no section headers or explicit navigation signaling to organize the guidance.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

0%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 a deprecation/status marker rather than a capability description, so it fails to convey what the skill does or when to use it across all four dimensions. It is appropriate as a shim label but scores poorly as a descriptive trigger.

Suggestions

Replace the status-only description with a concise statement of what the skill does (e.g., 'Reviews content for verification gaps') and add a 'Use when...' trigger clause, even for a deprecated shim.

Include natural trigger terms users would actually say (e.g., 'verification gaps', 'untested claims', 'missing checks') to improve trigger-term quality and distinctiveness.

Distinguish the skill from sibling review skills by naming the specific 'verification-gap' lens explicitly in the description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 'Deprecated — forwards to bmad-review' states only a deprecation status and names no concrete actions or domain, matching the entirely-vague anchor ('Helps with documents'); it is below score 2, which requires naming a domain or minimal action.

1 / 5

Completeness

It answers neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' — it only states a forwarding status, matching the missing-both/extremely-vague anchor; the missing 'Use when...' clause would cap it at 3, but it falls to 1 since neither dimension is addressed.

1 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Deprecated' and 'forwards to bmad-review' are operational/meta terms, not natural keywords a user would say when needing this skill, matching the no-natural-keywords anchor; it lacks even the generic user phrases of score 2.

1 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

As a pure routing/status statement with no distinct triggers, it gives no niche that would prevent overlap with other review skills, matching the entirely-generic anchor; referencing a target skill does not establish distinct triggers, so it stays at 1 rather than 2.

1 / 5

Total

4

/

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.