run-learning-retrospective

Evaluate learning progress, identify blockers, and adjust the learning plan

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/run-learning-retrospective/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is efficient and well-structured for a simple reflective skill, but the workflow steps are generic and lack concrete prompts or completion checkpoints. Tightening step guidance with specific questions or criteria would improve actionability and workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Make each workflow step more actionable by adding concrete prompts, e.g. 'Ask the learner which concepts felt hardest and how often each blocker recurred.'

Add a lightweight checkpoint between steps, such as confirming the prioritized reinforce/defer list before adjusting pacing.

Specify what the Ask user tool should elicit at each step so the interaction is copy-paste ready rather than implied.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no concept explanations Claude already knows; every section earns its place. It is not a 2 because there is no padding or unnecessary context to tighten.	3 / 3
Actionability	Steps are sequenced but abstract ('Review completed work against target outcomes', 'Identify recurring blockers') with no concrete prompts or criteria. It is not a 3 because guidance lacks copy-ready specifics, and not a 1 because the steps and 'Use Ask user tool' give some concrete direction.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Five steps are clearly numbered in sequence, but there are no checkpoints or specificity about how each step is confirmed complete. It is not a 3 because explicit validation/checkpoints are absent, and not a 1 because the sequence itself is clear and logical.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no external references needed, organized into clear Trigger/Workflow/Tools/Output sections. Per the simple-skills guideline this qualifies for a 3 with well-organized sections alone.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

60%

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 is concise and names concrete actions in correct third-person voice, but lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger clause and natural trigger keywords. Adding a 'Use when...' clause would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when a learner finishes a milestone and needs to review progress or adjust their learning plan.'

Include natural user-facing terms such as 'learning plan', 'study progress', 'stuck', or 'review my progress' to improve trigger coverage.

Tie the 'when' explicitly to milestone completion so it is distinguishable from generic planning skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Three concrete actions are listed ('Evaluate learning progress, identify blockers, and adjust the learning plan'), matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions. It is not a 2 because it goes beyond naming a domain to enumerating distinct actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	The 'what' is clear, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger, so completeness is capped at 2 per the guidelines. It is not a 3 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than explicit.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Domain terms like 'learning progress', 'blockers', and 'learning plan' are relevant but common variations a user might say are missing and there is no trigger clause. It is not a 3 due to thin keyword coverage, and not a 1 because the terms are natural rather than jargon.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The learning-retrospective niche is somewhat specific but without explicit triggers it could overlap with general planning or review skills. It is not a 3 because the lack of distinct trigger phrases leaves conflict risk, and not a 1 because the domain is not generic.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 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/run-learning-retrospective/SKILL.md
Commit: fe77e77

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.