CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

technical-writer

AI DevKit · Review and improve documentation for novice users. Use when users ask to review docs, improve documentation, audit README files, evaluate API docs, review guides, or improve technical writing.

Quality

88%

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

86%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.

A tight, well-structured instruction-only skill: lean sections, a concrete output template, defined rating dimensions, and an anti-rationalization table that steers away from known failure modes. The main gaps are the absence of a worked example showing a completed review and an implicit rather than explicit step ordering from reading the document to producing the output.

Suggestions

Add a short filled-in example of the output template (one document with actual ratings, a prioritized issue, and sample fix text) to make the expected output fully concrete.

Make the review sequence explicit (read document -> rate each dimension -> list issues by priority -> propose fix text -> await approval) so the workflow order is stated, not inferred.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~50-line body is lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (rules, dimensions, priorities, red flags, template) earns its tokens. It matches the score-5 anchor of assuming Claude's competence.

5 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable for an instruction-only skill: a copy-paste-ready output template, four defined rating dimensions, and concrete priority definitions. It falls short of 5 because the template contains placeholders ("X/5", "Concrete fix with example text") with no worked example of a filled-in review.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The single-task flow (rate dimensions, list prioritized issues with line numbers, suggest fixes, do not rewrite until approved) is unambiguous in its gating rule but implicitly sequenced rather than ordered, matching the score-4 anchor. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so no validation cap applies.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references (none exist in the bundle), and is organized into clear sections, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a score of 5.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

86%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.

A strong description with an explicit 'Use when' clause and comprehensive natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is specificity: the capability statement stays at the generic 'review and improve' level rather than enumerating the concrete review actions the skill performs. The 'AI DevKit ·' prefix adds no evaluative value.

Suggestions

Enumerate the concrete actions in the capability sentence, e.g. "Review and improve documentation for novice users: rate docs on clarity, completeness, actionability, and structure; produce prioritized issue lists with concrete fix text."

Drop the "AI DevKit ·" prefix or replace it with capability-relevant wording, since it consumes description budget without adding trigger value.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Review and improve documentation" names the domain with two concrete actions, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It does not reach 4 because it omits several specific actions the skill actually performs (rating on four dimensions, generating prioritized issue lists, drafting concrete fix text).

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Review and improve documentation for novice users") and when ("Use when users ask to...") with concrete trigger phrases, mirroring the score-5 anchor example. A 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger list "review docs, improve documentation, audit README files, evaluate API docs, review guides, or improve technical writing" covers natural synonyms comprehensively (docs/documentation, review/audit/evaluate, README/API docs/guides). It is not below 5 because the variations users would actually say are well represented.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Documentation review is a mostly distinct niche with specific triggers (README, API docs, guides), but "improve technical writing" carries minor overlap risk with general writing/editing skills, matching the score-4 anchor. It lacks the fully clear niche of a 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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

codeaholicguy/ai-devkit

Path

skills/technical-writer/SKILL.md

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.