CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

writers-pattern

Add a new platform writer module in src/writers/ that generates and writes agent config files for a supported platform. Each writer exports a function that accepts a config interface, creates directories (rules/, skills/, mcp configs), writes files with proper formatting and frontmatter, and returns string[] of written file paths. Use when adding platform support for a new agent, integrating a new code AI tool, or extending caliber to support new targets. Do NOT use for modifying existing writers, refactoring scoring logic, or changing how writers are invoked.

72

Quality

91%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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.

This is a highly actionable, well-sequenced pattern skill: every step is executable, anchored to real codebase locations, and closed with a validation checkpoint, and the troubleshooting section supplies error-recovery loops. Its weaknesses are moderate redundancy between the Critical section and the Steps, and a monolithic single-file structure that inlines a long worked example and troubleshooting guide instead of splitting them into reference files.

Suggestions

Move the full DevCode worked example (Examples section, ~70 lines) into a references/ file (e.g., references/devcode-example.md) and keep a 3-4 line summary with a clear pointer in SKILL.md, reducing always-loaded tokens.

Move the Common Issues section into references/troubleshooting.md, leaving the two or three most frequent errors inline with pointers to the rest.

Deduplicate the Critical section against the Steps — state the uniqueness check and frontmatter contract once (Critical) and have the Steps reference them instead of restating them.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with actionable material and never explains basics Claude already knows, but there is redundancy — the Critical section's validation rule ("Verify the platform name is unique") is restated verbatim in Step 1, and the frontmatter format appears in both Step 4 of the instructions and Common Issues. Not 5 because those repetitions and some over-long prose in Step 2 could be trimmed; not 3 because nearly every token is codebase-specific instruction rather than padding.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: complete TypeScript writer and test implementations, exact commands ("npm test -- src/writers/__tests__/<platform>.test.ts"), precise codebase anchors ("src/writers/claude/index.ts line 54-65"), and a copy-paste-ready worked DevCode example covering the common case. Template placeholders like `write<Platform>Config` are the appropriate form for a pattern skill.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced Steps 1–6 with an explicit "**Validation**" checkpoint closing each step (e.g., "All tests pass. Confirm mocked file operations match actual file system structure"), plus a Common Issues section providing error-recovery feedback loops for the batch file-writing operations. Matches the top anchor's validate-fix-retry structure.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), and all ~270 lines live in SKILL.md — the full 70-line DevCode worked example and the 25-line Common Issues section are inlined content that clearly belongs in separate reference files, matching anchor 3's "content that should be separate is inline". Not 4 because a 15KB monolithic body with no one-level-deep references misses the 'overview pointing to detailed materials' structure; not 2 because section headers (Critical / Instructions / Examples / Common Issues) keep it navigable.

3 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 exemplary: it states the concrete contract of a writer module (config interface in, string[] of written paths out, directories created, frontmatter formatting), gives explicit 'Use when' triggers, and closes with clear negative boundaries. The only weakness is that trigger synonyms and natural variations beyond the three listed phrases are sparse.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "exports a function that accepts a config interface, creates directories (rules/, skills/, mcp configs), writes files with proper formatting and frontmatter, and returns string[] of written file paths" — comprehensive and fully concrete, matching the top anchor; not 4 because coverage of the writer's behavior is complete rather than having minor gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Add a new platform writer module... generates and writes agent config files") and when ("Use when adding platform support for a new agent, integrating a new code AI tool..."), with concrete trigger phrases plus negative scope guidance; anchor 4's "when could be more explicit" does not apply.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when adding platform support for a new agent, integrating a new code AI tool, or extending caliber to support new targets" gives good natural-phrase coverage, but common variations (e.g., "new platform", "supported targets", tool names) are thin, so it sits between anchors 4 and 5 rather than clearly at 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (new writer modules under src/writers/) with distinct triggers and an explicit exclusion clause ("Do NOT use for modifying existing writers, refactoring scoring logic, or changing how writers are invoked") that minimizes conflict with adjacent skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
caliber-ai-org/ai-setup
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.