CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

false-positive-reviewer

Use when a user asks what AI-writing flags mean, whether detector output proves AI authorship, or wants a careful interpretation of possible false positives, especially for academic, hiring, publication, disciplinary, or other consequential decisions.

64

Quality

76%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/false-positive-reviewer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 well-structured, instruction-only skill that gives concrete interpretation guidance with clear do/don't rules and a sequenced workflow. Its main weaknesses are mild redundancy in router-return messaging and implicit rather than explicit verification gates.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'return control to the router' guidance into one section and reference it from the others to remove redundancy.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint in the Workflow (e.g., a step that confirms the evidence-type classification before producing the interpretation) to strengthen workflow clarity.

Add a brief one-line summary at the top of the body stating the skill's single terminal purpose, so the overview doubles as a navigation anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely lean procedural guidance without explaining concepts Claude already knows; minor redundancy in the repeated 'return control to the router' instructions across Terminal behavior, Workflow, and Stop conditions keeps it just under a 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, specific instruction-only guidance (evidence-type distinctions, explicit do-not rules, probative evidence suggestions) with minor gaps; appropriately lacks code for an interpretation skill.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear six-step Workflow plus Stop conditions and Terminal behavior gives a well-sequenced process; validation checkpoints are implicit (stop/return-to-router) rather than explicit verify gates, so it does not reach 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clearly labeled sections with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references to sibling-skill files; no local bundle exists, and the structure is good but not the crisp overview-plus-references pattern that would merit a 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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, specific description with an explicit and detailed 'Use when' trigger and a well-scoped niche. Its main limitation is that the 'what' is folded into the trigger phrasing rather than stated as a crisp standalone capability.

Suggestions

Lead with a standalone third-person capability statement (e.g., 'Interprets AI-writing detector flags as evidence rather than proof of authorship.') before the 'Use when' clause.

Add a couple of layperson trigger synonyms (e.g., 'AI-written', 'ChatGPT detection') to broaden natural-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (AI-writing flags, detector output, false positives) and several concrete interpretive scenarios (academic, hiring, publication, disciplinary), though the core action is a single interpretive task rather than a list of distinct operations.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicit 'Use when...' clause thoroughly answers 'when'; the 'what' (interpret flags / false positives) is present but embedded in the trigger clause rather than stated as a standalone capability, keeping it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say ('AI-writing flags', 'false positives', 'AI authorship', 'consequential decisions') with good synonym coverage, though a few common layperson phrasings are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (consequential authorship interpretation of AI-writing signals) with distinct, specific triggers and minimal overlap with adjacent skills.

5 / 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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
conorbronsdon/avoid-ai-writing
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.