CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

file-edit-in-place

Use when the user names a local file and explicitly asks to clean, rewrite, humanize, or remove AI-writing patterns in that file itself, with minimal targeted edits and post-edit verification.

Quality

82%

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

70%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-sequenced process specification with explicit validation, pass accounting, and a repair feedback loop. Its weaknesses are the deferral of the core editing contract to external sibling paths that are not present in the bundle, making the skill not fully self-executable, and some redundancy plus inlined cross-skill contract material.

Suggestions

Inline or bundle the core editing contract (AI-writing pattern list, context exceptions, pass conditions, protected-region definitions) instead of deferring to ../avoid-ai-writing/SKILL.md, which is not part of this skill's bundle and leaves execution criteria missing.

Consolidate the three redundant failure-honesty statements (propagate write failures / do not claim edits from proposed patches / execution_evidence gating) into a single rule to tighten conciseness.

Move the cross-skill connection-contract and handoff-state machinery into a bundled reference file (e.g., references/handoff-contract.md) so the SKILL.md body stays a lean overview and the referenced paths actually resolve within the skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense and prescriptive with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but failure-honesty is stated redundantly ("propagate write failures instead of reporting success", "Do not claim a file was edited because a patch was merely proposed", and the execution_evidence gating rule), and the ~40-line connection-contract section could be tightened or externalized.

4 / 5

Actionability

The process steps are concrete (pass counting via pass.index/pass.max, re-reading the changed region, reverting only affected spans), but the actual editing criteria — the pattern list, "context exceptions and pass conditions", and protected regions "defined by the canonical Skill" — are deferred to ../avoid-ai-writing/SKILL.md, which is not part of this skill's bundle, leaving key execution details missing.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The editing policy is a clearly sequenced 12-step process with explicit validation checkpoints (re-read after edit, VERIFY to preservation-verifier) and a complete feedback loop: FAIL from preservation-verifier triggers a bounded repair as the next editing pass, followed by re-verification and a stop-and-report rule if it fails again.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and references are one level deep and clearly signaled, but they point to sibling-skill paths outside the bundle that do not resolve (../avoid-ai-writing/SKILL.md, ../avoid-ai-writing-router/references/handoff-contract.md, skill-graph.json, agency-role-lenses.md), and the cross-skill connection-contract machinery is inlined rather than split out.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 that explicitly and concretely covers both what the skill does and when to use it, in third person with no padding. Trigger coverage is good but would benefit from the synonyms users commonly say (e.g., "AI-sounding", "less robotic", "make it sound human").

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ("clean, rewrite, humanize, or remove AI-writing patterns") plus qualifiers ("minimal targeted edits and post-edit verification"), but coverage has minor gaps — no mention of tone/voice adjustment or other common mutation phrasings.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — performing the four named mutation actions in place with minimal targeted edits and post-edit verification; when — "Use when the user names a local file and explicitly asks to...". Both are concrete, third-person, and free of fluff.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords ("clean", "rewrite", "humanize", "remove AI-writing patterns", "local file") that users would actually say, but missing common synonyms like "AI-sounding", "less robotic", "make it sound human", and no file-type or extension triggers.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers: in-place mutation of a user-named file for AI-writing-pattern removal, with "in that file itself" explicitly distinguishing it from returned-text rewriting skills. Minimal conflict risk with generic editing skills.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

conorbronsdon/avoid-ai-writing

Path

skills/file-edit-in-place/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.