create-learning-path

Build a personalized learning roadmap with milestones and practice checkpoints

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./teaching/skills/create-learning-path/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

78%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 exceptionally lean and well-organized for a simple skill, earning top marks on token efficiency and structure. Its main weakness is actionability: the workflow and output sections describe deliverables abstractly without any concrete template or example that would make the generated plan deterministic.

Suggestions

Add a brief concrete example of a milestone or checkpoint entry (e.g., 'Week 3: build a REST API CRUD endpoint; checkpoint: 2-hour time-boxed build without docs') to make the output format unambiguous.

Include a one-line template for the progress-review rubric referenced in the Output section, since its structure is currently left entirely to inference.

Add an explicit mid-workflow checkpoint (e.g., 'Confirm target outcomes and schedule with the user before sequencing topics') to validate assumptions early.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and efficient: every section (Trigger, Workflow, Tools, Guardrails, Output) carries only operational content with zero concept explanations or padding, matching anchor 5 ('Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place'). Nothing here could be trimmed without losing function.	5 / 5
Actionability	The workflow gives some concrete direction ("time-boxed checkpoints", "feedback criteria", "fundamentals to applied practice") but the guidance stays abstract — there are no examples of a milestone format, checkpoint cadence, or what a practice assignment looks like, matching anchor 3 ('Some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details'). Not 4 because an instruction-only skill still needs specific, executable guidance (e.g., a sample milestone or rubric template) to bridge the gap; not 2 because the five steps do define a real process rather than high-level hints.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The five numbered steps form a clear fundamentals-to-review sequence and step 5 ('Review progress and adjust pacing') provides a feedback loop, matching anchor 4 ('Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'). Not 5 because there is no explicit checkpoint for validating the plan with the user (e.g., confirming the schedule or baseline assessment before building the full roadmap), which the guardrails only hint at.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	This is a short (<50 line) single-purpose skill with no bundle files, and the body is organized into well-signaled sections (Trigger, Workflow, Tools, Guardrails, Output) with nothing that belongs in a separate file, so per the simple-skill scoring note it merits 5 ('Clear overview with... content appropriately split; easy navigation').	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 clearly communicates what the skill does but omits any explicit 'when to use it' trigger guidance, which both caps completeness and weakens its trigger-term quality. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural user phrasings (learning path, study plan, curriculum) would address the two lowest-weighted dimensions at once.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants a learning path, study plan, or upskilling roadmap spanning multiple sessions.'

Include natural synonyms users would say ("learning path", "study plan", "curriculum") alongside "learning roadmap" to improve trigger-term coverage.

Name one or two more concrete capabilities (e.g., 'assess baseline knowledge and adjust pacing') to round out the single 'Build' action verb.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ("learning roadmap") and one concrete action ("Build") plus two structural elements ("milestones and practice checkpoints"), which matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It falls below 4 because there is only a single action verb with no supporting capabilities (e.g., assessing baseline knowledge, adjusting pacing), and above 2 because the domain is concrete rather than generic.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated ("Build a personalized learning roadmap with milestones and practice checkpoints") but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3 ('Has a clear what but when is missing'). Not 4 because the when is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "learning roadmap", "milestones", and "practice checkpoints" are relevant, but common natural variations users would actually say — "learning path", "study plan", "curriculum", "upskill" — are absent, matching the anchor 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. Not 4 because the coverage of natural trigger phrasing is thin; not 2 because the terms present are domain-appropriate rather than generic.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Personalized learning roadmap" carves out a recognizable niche with distinct triggers (milestones, practice checkpoints), giving minor overlap risk with closely related skills like tutoring or study-planning — matching anchor 4 ('Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'). Not 5 because the phrase "Build a personalized..." is a fairly generic construction that adjacent educational-planning skills could share.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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: cursor/plugins
Path: teaching/skills/create-learning-path/SKILL.md
Commit: c47b128

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.