analyze-content-gaps
Identify content gaps and organizational opportunities. Analyzes missing content areas, redundancies, and consolidation opportunities.
37
22%
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 ./skills/analyze-content-gaps/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
9%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is too vague and abstract to effectively guide skill selection. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause, uses analytical jargon instead of natural user language, and is not specific enough about what kind of content it operates on or what concrete outputs it produces. It would likely conflict with other content-related skills.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about missing topics, duplicate content, what to write next, or how to reorganize their documentation.'
Specify the content domain and concrete outputs, e.g., 'Analyzes a documentation set or knowledge base to find missing topics, flag duplicate articles, and suggest pages to merge or restructure.'
Include natural user-facing keywords like 'documentation audit', 'missing topics', 'duplicate pages', 'reorganize docs', or 'content review' to improve trigger term quality.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (content analysis) and some actions (identify content gaps, analyze missing content areas, redundancies, consolidation opportunities), but the actions are somewhat abstract and not fully concrete—what kind of content? What does 'consolidation opportunities' mean in practice? | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The description addresses 'what' (analyzes missing content, redundancies, consolidation) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is also somewhat vague, bringing this to 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The terms used ('content gaps', 'organizational opportunities', 'redundancies', 'consolidation opportunities') are analytical jargon rather than natural phrases a user would say. Users are more likely to say things like 'what am I missing', 'what topics should I cover', 'duplicate content', or 'reorganize my docs'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is very generic—'content gaps and organizational opportunities' could overlap with many skills related to content strategy, documentation management, writing assistance, or information architecture. There are no distinct triggers to differentiate it. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads more like a high-level process description than actionable guidance for Claude. It lacks concrete tools, commands, or examples of how to actually perform gap analysis on a documentation set. The workflow is logically sequenced but entirely abstract, giving Claude no specific methods to execute each step.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable examples: show exactly how Claude should scan a directory structure, identify topic coverage (e.g., specific file listing commands, grep patterns for topic detection), and produce the gap analysis report with a sample output template.
Specify which tools Claude should use at each step (e.g., Bash for directory traversal, Read for file inspection) and what heuristics to apply for identifying 'thin' vs 'adequate' coverage.
Add a concrete example of the expected GAP_ANALYSIS_REPORT output format with sample entries, so Claude knows exactly what to produce.
Include validation checkpoints—e.g., after Step 1, verify the baseline inventory is complete before proceeding to needs analysis.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably structured but includes some unnecessary framing (e.g., 'Quick Reference' section restating purpose/outcome, explanatory text that Claude would already understand about gap analysis concepts). Could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill is entirely abstract and descriptive—no concrete commands, code, tools, or executable steps. 'Analyze search logs' and 'Compare against competitor documentation' are vague directions with no specifics on how to actually perform these actions with available tools. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed in a logical sequence, but there are no validation checkpoints, no feedback loops, and no concrete criteria for when a step is complete. The workflow reads more like a conceptual framework than an operational procedure. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is organized with clear sections and headers, but everything is inline in a single file with no references to supplementary materials. For a skill of this complexity (multiple analysis types, competitive benchmarking), examples or templates could be split out. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- dandye/ai-runbooks
- Commit
086cbf6
- 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.