CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

swot-analysis

Build an evidence-cited SWOT of one company — yours or a competitor's — from public sources, ending with the S-O/W-T crossings. Use for strategy reviews, board prep, or competitor depth.

64

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/swot-analysis/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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.

A well-structured, actionable instruction-only skill with a precise output schema and disciplined workflow, weakened primarily by missing bundle files (template.md, examples/sample.md, examples/sample-industrial.md) that the body references for progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced bundle files (template.md, examples/sample.md, examples/sample-industrial.md) or remove the links so progressive-disclosure navigation is not broken.

Trim rhetorical commentary (e.g., 'a parking lot with four sections') to push conciseness toward fully lean.

Add an explicit verify-and-fix loop for the S-O/W-T crossings (e.g., 're-check that each strength named in S-O is documented evidence, not a claim') to strengthen workflow_clarity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly earns its tokens with specific guidance (exact schema, question budget, label discipline), but rhetorical flourishes like 'a parking lot with four sections' are minor over-explanation that keeps it just below lean; it stays above 3 because it assumes Claude's competence rather than explaining basics.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides a copy-paste-ready output schema, a numbered 4-step process, an exact 4-option Final Step, and concrete inline examples; it is not 5 because the full worked examples it points to are absent from the bundle, leaving a gap in common-case coverage.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Application section sequences 4 clear steps with checkpoints (search-plan gate, max-3 question budget, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just-Enough caps); it is not 5 because there is no explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop, though the skill is analytical rather than destructive so the cap does not apply.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and signals one-level-deep references to template.md and examples/sample.md, but those referenced bundle files do not exist, so promised navigation is broken; the good structure keeps it above 2, while the missing files prevent a 4.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

82%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.

A strong description: third-person voice, explicit what-and-when, and a distinctive niche anchored by the SWOT framing and crossings deliverable. The only weakness is that it states one composite action rather than enumerating several concrete capabilities.

Suggestions

Expand the action list to name 2-3 concrete outputs (e.g., 'build, source-label, and rank the four quadrants, then produce the S-O/W-T crossings') to lift specificity.

Add a natural synonym trigger such as 'competitive positioning' or 'strengths/weaknesses analysis' to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain ('evidence-cited SWOT of one company') and a concrete deliverable ('ending with the S-O/W-T crossings'), but describes a single composite action rather than several specific actions, so it falls below the 'lists several specific actions' anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' ('Build an evidence-cited SWOT... ending with the S-O/W-T crossings') and 'when' with an explicit 'Use for strategy reviews, board prep, or competitor depth' trigger clause.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'SWOT', 'strategy reviews', 'board prep', and 'competitor depth' are natural terms a user would say, giving good keyword coverage; it is not a 5 because synonyms and explicit variations are thin.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'evidence-cited SWOT', 'S-O/W-T crossings', and 'competitor depth' carve a clear niche with distinctive triggers and minimal overlap risk with adjacent suite skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 missing, 13 suspicious

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills
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.