analyze-with-file

Interactive collaborative analysis with documented discussions, inline exploration, and evolving understanding.

Quality

27%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.codex/skills/analyze-with-file/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

55%

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

This skill is remarkably thorough and actionable with excellent workflow clarity, explicit validation gates, and concrete executable guidance at every step. However, it severely suffers from being a monolithic ~600-line document with no progressive disclosure — all JSON schemas, markdown templates, reference tables, and detailed sub-procedures are inlined rather than split into supporting bundle files. The verbosity is its biggest weakness, consuming significant context window budget when much of the content could be referenced on-demand.

Suggestions

Extract JSON schemas (state.json, exploration-codebase.json, research.json, handoff.json) into a separate `schemas.md` or individual schema files, referenced from the main SKILL.md

Move the discussion.md template structure, round template, and record formats into a `templates.md` bundle file, keeping only a brief summary in the main skill

Extract the Reference section (Analysis Dimensions, Perspectives, Depth Levels, Dimension-Direction Mapping) into a `reference.md` bundle file

Condense the main SKILL.md to ~150-200 lines focusing on the core flow, phase transitions, and key decision points, with clear links to supporting files for details

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	This skill is extremely verbose at ~600+ lines with exhaustive detail on every sub-step, JSON schemas, markdown templates, and state management. Much of this (e.g., how to generate slugs, detailed JSON schemas for every artifact, confidence scoring formulas) could be dramatically condensed or split into reference files. Claude doesn't need this level of hand-holding for session management patterns.	1 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides highly concrete, executable guidance: specific CLI flags, exact JSON schemas, precise file paths, complete markdown templates, specific function calls (functions.update_plan, functions.request_user_input, web.run), and detailed decision trees for every branch. Every step is copy-paste actionable.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The multi-phase workflow is exceptionally well-sequenced with explicit validation gates (readiness gate, intent coverage verification, findings-to-recommendations traceability), feedback loops (stall detection → intervention, pressure pass, challenge mode injection), clear exit criteria per phase, and error recovery paths. The Phase 3→4 transition has mandatory quality gates that prevent premature synthesis.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Everything is crammed into a single monolithic SKILL.md with no bundle files. The reference tables, JSON schemas, markdown templates, recording protocols, and dimension mappings should be split into separate reference files. The document is a wall of text that forces Claude to parse 600+ lines every time, with no layered structure despite having clear candidates for extraction (e.g., schemas.md, templates.md, dimensions.md).	1 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

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 highly abstract and lacks any concrete actions, specific domains, or trigger guidance. It reads as a collection of buzzwords ('collaborative analysis', 'evolving understanding', 'inline exploration') that fail to communicate what the skill actually does or when it should be selected. It would be nearly impossible for Claude to reliably choose this skill from a list of alternatives.

Suggestions

Replace abstract phrases with concrete actions — specify what kind of analysis is performed, on what types of content, and what outputs are produced (e.g., 'Annotates documents with inline comments, tracks discussion threads, and summarizes analytical findings').

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms that users would actually say (e.g., 'Use when the user wants to collaboratively review a document, add inline annotations, or track evolving analysis notes').

Define the specific domain or niche this skill serves to distinguish it from general analysis or discussion skills (e.g., specify whether this is for code review, research analysis, data exploration, etc.).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague, abstract language like 'interactive collaborative analysis', 'documented discussions', 'inline exploration', and 'evolving understanding' without naming any concrete actions. There are no specific operations like 'analyze data', 'generate reports', or 'create summaries'.	1 / 3
Completeness	The description weakly addresses 'what' with vague language and completely lacks any 'when' guidance. There is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, and even the 'what' portion is too abstract to be useful.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The terms used ('collaborative analysis', 'documented discussions', 'inline exploration', 'evolving understanding') are abstract buzzwords that users would rarely naturally say. A user would not typically ask for 'evolving understanding' or 'inline exploration'.	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, domain, file type, or specific use case to distinguish it from other skills.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

Warnings & errors only

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: 07491b0

Reviewed: 20 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.