CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

roadmap-with-file

Strategic requirement roadmap with iterative decomposition and issue creation. Outputs roadmap.md (human-readable, single source) + issues.jsonl (machine-executable).

37

Quality

36%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.codex/skills/roadmap-with-file/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

39%

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

This skill has excellent workflow clarity with well-defined phases, validation gates, and error handling, but is severely undermined by its extreme verbosity and monolithic structure. At 500+ lines with no bundle files, it dumps implementation pseudocode, templates, schemas, and redundant explanations into a single file, wasting significant context window. The actionability is moderate — code examples are detailed but not truly executable due to undefined variables and unclear API contracts.

Suggestions

Extract the roadmap.md template, JSONL schema, and query interface into separate bundle files (e.g., TEMPLATE.md, SCHEMA.md, COMMANDS.md) and reference them from the main skill with one-level-deep links.

Cut the implementation section by 60-70% — replace full JavaScript code blocks with concise step descriptions and key decision logic only. Claude can generate the implementation from a specification.

Remove redundant content: the 'Why No Separate JSON Files' table, repeated planning-only warnings (appears 3+ times), and the 'Best Practices' section which largely duplicates 'Core Rules'.

Consolidate the Usage section examples and the ASCII workflow diagram into a compact quick-reference, moving detailed phase implementations to a separate IMPLEMENTATION.md bundle file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely verbose at ~500+ lines. Massive amounts of implementation detail (full JavaScript code blocks for session init, phase logic, agent spawning) that Claude could infer from a concise specification. The roadmap.md template, JSONL schema, query interface, and multiple redundant tables (e.g., 'Why No Separate JSON Files') bloat the content significantly. Many concepts are over-explained (e.g., explaining what JSONL format is, repeating planning-only constraints in multiple places).

1 / 3

Actionability

Contains substantial concrete code examples (JavaScript for session init, agent spawning, phase logic) and specific commands (ccw issue create, ccw issue list). However, much of the code is pseudo-implementation rather than truly executable — variables like `strategyAssessment`, `changesMade`, `decisionRecord` are undefined, `file_exists()` and `Read()`/`Write()`/`Edit()` are used without clear API context, and `web.run` usage is hand-waved. The code serves more as detailed pseudocode than copy-paste ready implementation.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 4-phase workflow is clearly sequenced with an ASCII diagram, explicit validation checkpoints (Phase 3 iterative refinement with max 5 rounds), a mandatory terminal gate, error handling table, and success criteria for each phase. The feedback loop includes explicit decision recording and the 'Record-Before-Continue' pattern. Destructive operation safeguards are addressed via the planning-only constraint repeated throughout.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Monolithic wall of text with no bundle files to offload content to. The roadmap.md template, JSONL schema, query interface, implementation details for all 4 phases, error handling, best practices, and usage recommendations are all inlined in a single massive file. Content like the full roadmap.md template, JSONL record schema, and detailed agent message templates should be in separate referenced files.

1 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

32%

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 communicates a specialized workflow involving requirement decomposition into a roadmap and machine-readable issues, with specific output artifacts. However, it lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), uses somewhat jargon-heavy language rather than natural user terms, and the core actions could be more concretely described. The specific output file formats add some distinctiveness but don't compensate for the missing usage triggers.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to plan features, break down requirements into tasks, create a project roadmap, or generate issues/tickets from a set of requirements.'

Replace abstract terms like 'iterative decomposition' with concrete actions users would recognize, e.g., 'Breaks down high-level requirements into actionable issues/tasks, creates a prioritized roadmap, and generates trackable issue files.'

Include common user-facing synonyms such as 'project planning', 'feature breakdown', 'backlog creation', 'tickets', or 'task planning' to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (requirement roadmapping) and some actions (iterative decomposition, issue creation) and specifies outputs (roadmap.md, issues.jsonl), but the actions are somewhat abstract — 'strategic requirement roadmap' and 'iterative decomposition' are more process-oriented than concrete user-facing actions.

2 / 3

Completeness

Describes what it does (creates a roadmap with decomposition and issue creation, outputs specific files) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is also somewhat vague, warranting a score of 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant terms like 'roadmap', 'requirement', 'issue creation', and 'decomposition', but misses common natural language variations users might say such as 'plan features', 'break down requirements', 'create tickets', 'project planning', or 'backlog'. The terms lean more toward process jargon than natural user language.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The specific output files (roadmap.md, issues.jsonl) and the combination of roadmapping + issue creation provide some distinctiveness, but 'requirement' and 'roadmap' are broad enough to potentially overlap with general project planning or issue tracking skills.

2 / 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.

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (907 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
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.