CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

eli5

Transform technical jargon into clear explanations using before/after comparisons, metaphors, and practical context

72

3.30x
Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

86%

3.30x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/eli5/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 a well-structured, actionable instruction skill with clear workflow sequencing, validation, and supporting reference files; its main weakness is verbosity, chiefly the large inlined adversarial-review prompt that belongs in a separate reference.

Suggestions

Move the full adversarial-review prompt (Step 9) into a references file (e.g. references/adversarial-review-prompt.md) and keep only the invocation instructions inline to reclaim significant tokens.

Tighten the Philosophy and Anti-patterns sections — several points overlap (e.g. consequence chains, synonym glosses appear in both the checklist, decision framework, and anti-patterns).

Consider condensing the Quality Checklist by cross-referencing the Anti-patterns section rather than restating each item in both places.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and contains genuinely non-obvious Cloudflare-specific guidance, but the ~75-line inlined adversarial-review prompt and the nine-item anti-patterns section are padded material that could be tightened or moved to a reference file.

3 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete, actionable guidance — a copy-paste output template, numeric addition limits (e.g. '1-2 examples per concept'), content-type detection signals, and a glossary quality gate — with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The nine-step workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit adversarial-review feedback loop and a quality checklist, but the review is advisory (asks the user what to do next) rather than a hard validate-fix-proceed gate, leaving a minor validation gap.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Three one-level-deep reference files (content-type-guide.md, pattern-library.md, EXAMPLES_REFERENCE.md) are clearly signaled at the end, but some content that could live in a reference — notably the full inlined adversarial-review prompt — remains in SKILL.md.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 specific and distinct about what the skill does, but it lacks any explicit "when to use" trigger guidance and misses the natural user terms (ELI5, simplify, plain English) that would help it surface at the right moment.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when simplifying technical docs for mixed audiences, or when the user asks to ELI5 / explain in plain English.'

Incorporate natural trigger synonyms users actually say — 'ELI5', 'simplify', 'plain English', 'explain like I'm five' — alongside 'technical jargon'.

Optionally name the supported formats (`.md`, `.mdx`) in the description to sharpen trigger matching.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Transform technical jargon into clear explanations," "before/after comparisons, metaphors, and practical context" — giving clear coverage of what the skill does, with only minor gaps in enumerating the full capability set.

4 / 5

Completeness

It clearly answers "what" the skill does but provides no "Use when…" clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant keywords ("technical jargon," "clear explanations," "metaphors") but omits the natural phrases users actually say — "ELI5," "simplify," "explain in plain English" — so common variations are missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of "technical jargon," "before/after comparisons," and "metaphors" carves a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against general writing/explanation skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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
cloudflare/cloudflare-docs
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.