run-learning-retrospective
Evaluate learning progress, identify blockers, and adjust the learning plan
42
27%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./teaching/skills/run-learning-retrospective/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
25%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 provides a basic sense of the skill's purpose but is too vague and generic to effectively differentiate it from other learning-related skills. It lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...'), concrete outputs, and natural user-facing keywords that would help Claude reliably select it.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to review their learning progress, feels stuck on a topic, or wants to update their study plan.'
Include more natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'stuck', 'not making progress', 'review my plan', 'study check-in', 'adjust curriculum'.
Increase specificity by describing concrete actions and outputs, e.g., 'Generates progress reports, diagnoses knowledge gaps through targeted questions, and restructures learning milestones and timelines.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names a domain (learning) and lists some actions (evaluate progress, identify blockers, adjust plan), but the actions are somewhat generic and lack concrete detail about how these are performed or what outputs are produced. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also only moderately clear, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'learning progress', 'blockers', and 'learning plan', but misses common user variations such as 'study plan', 'stuck', 'review progress', 'check-in', or 'how am I doing'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very generic phrasing around 'learning' could easily conflict with other education, tutoring, study planning, or mentoring skills. Nothing distinguishes this from a general learning assistant or study planner. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
29%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a high-level outline that describes what a learning retrospective should accomplish without providing any concrete, actionable guidance on how to do it. The workflow steps read like a generic checklist that Claude could infer on its own. The skill needs specific frameworks, example questions, evaluation criteria, and templates to be useful.
Suggestions
Add a concrete retrospective template or framework with specific questions to ask the learner (e.g., 'What concept took the longest to grasp?', 'Which exercises did you skip or struggle with?').
Include specific criteria or heuristics for decision-making, such as when to reinforce a concept vs. defer it (e.g., 'If the learner failed >50% of practice problems on a topic, schedule reinforcement before proceeding').
Provide an example output showing what a progress retrospective and updated learning plan actually look like, with concrete structure and measurable checkpoints.
Add a validation step — e.g., confirm the updated plan with the learner before finalizing, and define what 'measurable checkpoint' means with examples.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is relatively brief and doesn't over-explain concepts Claude already knows, but the workflow steps are generic and vague enough that they don't add much value — they describe what Claude would naturally do without specific, novel guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides only abstract, high-level descriptions ('identify recurring blockers,' 'adjust pacing') with no concrete examples, templates, rubrics, question frameworks, or specific criteria for evaluation. There is nothing executable or copy-paste ready. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The steps are listed but entirely vague with no validation checkpoints, no criteria for decision-making (e.g., when to reinforce vs defer), and no feedback loops. There's no guidance on how to actually perform any of the steps. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple, short skill with no need for external references or multi-file structure. The sections are well-organized with clear trigger, workflow, tools, and output sections. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- cursor/plugins
- Commit
7dd9fea
- 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.