CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review-plugin-submission

Audit a Cursor plugin for marketplace readiness. Use when validating manifests, component metadata, discovery paths, and submission quality before publishing.

Quality

85%

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 lean, well-structured audit skill: every line is a concrete check, the workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit output contract, and the single-task scope needs no external references. The main improvement area is converting judgement-style checks ("coherent", "clear and focused") into objectively testable criteria.

Suggestions

Make judgement-style checks testable: replace "metadata fields are coherent" and "Rules include valid frontmatter and clear guidance" with explicit criteria (e.g., required frontmatter keys, version semver format, description length bounds).

Add a short failure-handling loop to the Workflow: what Claude should do when a check fails (e.g., collect the failing item, record severity, and re-verify after any fix) rather than only emitting a fix list at the end.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is pure checkable items — concrete paths, field names, and expected properties — with zero concept explanation or padding (e.g., "`.cursor-plugin/plugin.json` exists", "`name` is valid lowercase kebab-case"). Every token earns its place, matching the lean anchor rather than anchor 4's "minor instances of over-explanation".

5 / 5

Actionability

Most checks are concretely executable: specific file paths ("skills/*/SKILL.md", "hooks/hooks.json", "mcp.json") and specific rules ("name is valid lowercase kebab-case"). However, several items are unexecuted judgements — "metadata fields are coherent", "Rules include valid frontmatter and clear guidance", "Plugin scope is clear and focused" — which describe a desired state without instructing how to judge it, placing this just below fully-executable anchor 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced, each step is itself a verification checkpoint, and it closes with a Checklist and an Output contract (pass/fail by section, prioritized fix list, recommendation). The destructive/batch cap does not apply (read-only audit). It falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no explicit failure/retry feedback loop beyond emitting a fix list.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and none are needed: the body is under 50 lines, single-task, and cleanly sectioned (Trigger, Workflow, Checklist, Output) with no content that belongs in a separate file. Per the rubric's simple-skill note, well-organized sections alone earn the top anchor.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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 description: third-person, concise, with an explicit Use-when clause and a well-defined Cursor-plugin marketplace niche. The main residual gap is that the when-clause describes the validation stage rather than the concrete user moments that should fire the skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Audit a Cursor plugin for marketplace readiness. Use when validating manifests, component metadata, discovery paths, and submission quality" names the domain and several concrete audit targets. It exceeds anchor 3 (only 1-2 concrete actions) but stops short of anchor 5's comprehensive, multi-verb action coverage since every action is a variant of "validating X".

4 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the "what" is "Audit a Cursor plugin for marketplace readiness" and the "when" is "Use when validating... before publishing", in third person. It is not a 5 because the when-clause names validation-stage activities rather than concrete user-side trigger moments (e.g., "when the user asks to review or publish their plugin").

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "Cursor plugin", "marketplace", "manifests", "submission", and "publishing" are natural phrases a user would say. A few common variations are missing (e.g., "submit a plugin", "release a plugin", "plugin review"), matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Cursor plugin", "marketplace readiness", and "submission quality" establish a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk — few other skills would claim these terms. It fits anchor 5 better than anchor 4, which would require notable overlap with a closely related skill.

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

cursor/plugins

Path

create-plugin/skills/review-plugin-submission/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.