generate-report

Save investigation findings to a markdown report file. Use after completing triage, enrichment, or investigation to create a permanent record. Generates timestamped files in ./reports/ directory.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/generate-report/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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.

The content is a lean, well-structured, single-purpose skill with concrete filename templates and a clear two-step workflow. It loses points for a duplicated examples table, an unspecified timestamp method, and a defined-but-unverified WRITE_STATUS output.

Suggestions

Remove the redundant Naming Convention table or merge it into Step 1's examples to eliminate duplicated content and tighten conciseness.

Add an explicit verification step after the Write (e.g., confirm WRITE_STATUS succeeded and return REPORT_FILE_PATH) to close the workflow-clarity validation gap.

Specify how to obtain the YYYYMMDD_HHMM timestamp (e.g., current local time formatted as such) so the filename construction is fully copy-paste ready.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but the Naming Convention table duplicates filename examples already shown in Step 1, a minor instance that could be trimmed, matching the score-4 anchor rather than the fully lean score-5.	4 / 5
Actionability	The filename template "{TARGET_DIRECTORY}/{REPORT_TYPE}_{REPORT_NAME_SUFFIX}_{YYYYMMDD_HHMM}.md", concrete examples, and "Use the Write tool to save" instruction give mostly executable guidance; the timestamp-generation method is left implicit, a minor gap keeping it at 4.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear two-step sequence (construct filename, write file) is present, matching the score-4 anchor; however WRITE_STATUS is defined as an output yet the workflow never instructs verifying the write succeeded, a minor validation gap that prevents a 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The self-contained body is well-organized into Inputs, Workflow, Outputs, and template sections with no external references needed, but at ~74 lines with minor duplication between Step 1 and the Naming Convention table it has minor organization gaps versus the score-5 ideal.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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.

The description clearly answers both what and when with concrete, domain-specific trigger terms and a distinct niche. It is slightly thin on enumerated actions and has minor overlap risk with generic file-writing skills.

Suggestions

Expand specificity by listing 2-3 concrete actions (e.g., 'constructs a timestamped filename, writes the markdown file, and returns the saved path') to move from 1-2 actions toward comprehensive coverage.

Add a few more natural trigger synonyms to the description (e.g., 'case', 'IOC', 'threat hunt') so it captures the full range of analyst phrasings already documented in the body.

Sharpen distinctiveness by referencing the standardized filename convention in the description to further separate it from generic report-writing skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes "Save investigation findings to a markdown report file" and "Generates timestamped files in ./reports/ directory" name the domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, matching the score-3 anchor; it does not list several distinct actions needed for a 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly states what ("Save investigation findings to a markdown report file") and when ("Use after completing triage, enrichment, or investigation to create a permanent record") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the score-5 anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"Use after completing triage, enrichment, or investigation" supplies good natural keyword coverage a security analyst would say, matching the score-4 anchor; it misses some synonyms (case, IOC, threat hunt) that appear only in the body, keeping it below 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The investigation-reporting niche with triage/enrichment/investigation triggers is mostly distinct, matching the score-4 anchor; minor overlap risk remains with a generic file-writing skill, so it is not a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: dandye/ai-runbooks
Path: skills/generate-report/SKILL.md
Commit: 72a6863

Reviewed: 6 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.