analyze-with-file
Interactive collaborative analysis with documented discussions, inline exploration, and evolving understanding.
27
19%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.codex/skills/analyze-with-file/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%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 description is almost entirely composed of vague, abstract language with no concrete actions, no natural trigger terms, and no explicit guidance on when to use the skill. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to correctly select this skill from a pool of alternatives, as it lacks specificity, completeness, and distinctiveness.
Suggestions
Replace abstract phrases like 'evolving understanding' and 'inline exploration' with concrete actions describing what the skill actually does (e.g., 'Annotates documents with inline comments, tracks discussion threads, summarizes analysis findings').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms a user would actually say (e.g., 'Use when the user asks for collaborative review, document annotation, or iterative analysis of a topic').
Narrow the scope to a clear niche to reduce conflict risk—specify the domain, file types, or workflow this skill applies to (e.g., 'for research papers', 'for code reviews', 'for data exploration notebooks').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language like 'interactive collaborative analysis' and 'evolving understanding' without naming any concrete actions. There are no specific capabilities listed—no verbs describing what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Neither the 'what' nor the 'when' is clearly answered. There is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, and the 'what' is too vague to be actionable. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The terms used ('collaborative analysis', 'documented discussions', 'inline exploration', 'evolving understanding') are abstract buzzwords, not natural keywords a user would type. A user would never say 'I need evolving understanding' when requesting help. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is extremely generic—'interactive collaborative analysis' could apply to virtually any analytical or discussion-based skill. It provides no clear niche or distinct triggers to differentiate it from other skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
39%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill defines a comprehensive and well-structured interactive analysis workflow with excellent phase sequencing, validation gates, and quality mechanisms. However, it is severely over-engineered for a single SKILL.md file — the extreme verbosity (~500+ lines) with inline JSON schemas, full markdown templates, and exhaustive reference tables wastes significant context window budget. The content would benefit enormously from splitting reference material into bundle files and condensing the core instructions to essential decision points and rules.
Suggestions
Split reference material (JSON schemas, markdown templates, dimension/perspective tables, record formats) into separate bundle files (e.g., `templates/discussion.md`, `schemas/state.json`, `reference/dimensions.md`) and reference them from the main SKILL.md
Condense the phase descriptions to essential rules, gates, and decision points — remove procedural narration that Claude can infer (e.g., 'Parse topic, flags, generate session ID' doesn't need a dedicated numbered step)
Remove redundant explanations — the confidence scoring factors table, consolidation rules, and recording protocol principles repeat information that's already implicit in the templates and examples
Replace the verbose inline JSON schema examples with brief descriptions and pointers to schema files in a bundle, keeping only a minimal example in the main skill body
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | This skill is extremely verbose at ~500+ lines. It exhaustively specifies JSON schemas, markdown templates, table formats, and procedural details that Claude could infer from high-level instructions. Many sections (e.g., full state.json schema, detailed confidence scoring weights, complete discussion.md template) could be dramatically condensed. The skill explains concepts like session slugification, UTC+8 timestamps, and file organization at a level of detail that wastes significant context window budget. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete JSON schemas, markdown templates, and specific commands (e.g., `ccw spec load`, `git rev-parse`), which is good. However, it lacks executable code examples — the guidance is procedural description rather than copy-paste-ready implementations. Many steps describe what to do conceptually (e.g., 'Score each dimension on 5 weighted factors') without showing how to actually compute or implement this in practice. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-phase workflow is exceptionally well-sequenced with clear phase transitions, explicit exit criteria for each phase, mandatory gates (readiness gate, intent coverage verification, findings traceability), feedback loops (stall detection → intervention, pressure pass → validate/correct), and error recovery paths. The validation checkpoints are thorough and well-placed throughout the process. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Despite the skill's enormous length, everything is crammed into a single monolithic file with no references to supporting bundle files. The detailed JSON schemas, markdown templates, reference tables (dimensions, perspectives, direction mappings), and recording protocols could easily be split into separate reference files. The internal anchor links (e.g., '#analysis-dimensions', '#round-template') provide some navigation but don't compensate for the wall-of-text problem. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (889 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
- Commit
5ff5e86
- 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.