audit-content
Comprehensive content quality and maintenance assessment. Evaluates documentation quality, relevance, maintenance needs, and provides actionable recommendations.
46
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
32%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 reasonable overview of the skill's purpose but lacks explicit trigger guidance, which is critical for skill selection. The actions described are somewhat abstract rather than concrete, and the description misses natural user language variations that would help Claude match this skill to user requests.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when reviewing documentation for staleness, checking content accuracy, auditing docs, or when user mentions doc review, content audit, or maintenance assessment'.
Include more concrete actions such as 'identifies outdated sections, flags broken links, checks code example validity, assesses readability scores'.
Add natural trigger terms users would say: 'docs review', 'content audit', 'stale documentation', 'doc health check', 'outdated content'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (content/documentation quality) and lists some actions (evaluates quality, relevance, maintenance needs, provides recommendations), but these are somewhat abstract rather than concrete specific actions like 'check for broken links' or 'verify code examples compile'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (evaluates documentation quality and provides recommendations) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'documentation quality', 'maintenance', and 'content quality', but misses common natural variations users might say like 'docs review', 'outdated docs', 'stale content', 'doc audit', or 'content review'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The focus on 'documentation quality and maintenance' provides some specificity, but 'content quality' and 'actionable recommendations' are generic enough to potentially overlap with editing, writing, or general review skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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 provides a reasonable high-level framework for content auditing but lacks the concrete, executable guidance needed for Claude to actually perform the task. The workflow describes concepts rather than providing specific commands, code snippets, or detailed criteria. The structure is decent but would benefit from explicit validation steps and more actionable implementation details.
Suggestions
Add concrete code or command examples for scanning files, checking dates, and validating links (e.g., Python snippets using os.walk, pathlib, or requests for link checking)
Provide specific, measurable criteria for quality assessment (e.g., 'Clarity: Flesch reading score > 60' or 'Completeness: must include X, Y, Z sections')
Add validation checkpoints between steps (e.g., 'Verify inventory is complete before proceeding to quality assessment')
Include an example output report showing the exact markdown format expected for CONTENT_AUDIT_REPORT
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., parenthetical examples like 'e.g., plain language' and 'e.g., > 6 months old' that Claude would understand). The inputs section could be more compact. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill describes what to do at a high level but provides no concrete code, commands, or executable examples. Phrases like 'Scan the target PATH' and 'Evaluate content against quality metrics' are vague without implementation details. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed in sequence but lack validation checkpoints. There's no feedback loop for error handling, no explicit verification between steps, and the FIX_MODE behavior is underspecified (when to 'suggest' vs 'apply'). | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is reasonably organized with clear sections, but everything is inline in one file. For a skill of this complexity, quality metrics and output templates could be split into reference files. | 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 | |
- 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.