CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

migrate-content-ia

Handle Hugo docs information-architecture moves: discover old vs new URLs, add front matter aliases (Phase 1), update in-repo links (Phase 2), interactive List 2 resolution and fragment validation (Phase 3; no guessing). Supports PR-scoped mapping plus whole-content sweeps for inbound links to that mapping, or a full-site follow-up. Triggers on: "IA migration", "redirects for moved pages", "fix links after content move", "PR-scoped link/anchor pass", "aliases for old URLs". After branch work, chain the review-changes skill (main...HEAD) before a PR. Agents must run the in-file required procedure and definition of done, not the phases alone in isolation.

68

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%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 body is a well-sequenced, highly actionable migration procedure with explicit validation gates, a definition of done, and a genuine interactive feedback loop for fragment resolution. Its main weaknesses are repetition — core policies are restated four to five times across sections — and a monolithic single-file layout where conventions could be split into reference files.

Suggestions

State each core policy once and cross-reference it: the 'inbound links live outside PR_SCOPE_FILES' rule and 'No guessing' are each repeated in 4–5 sections; one canonical statement plus links would cut significant length.

Move the Conventions sections (aliases, link style, shortcodes, fragments, external URLs) into a references/ file (e.g. references/conventions.md) and keep SKILL.md as the phase procedure plus a pointer, closing the gap with the promised reference.md mechanism.

Provide a concrete example sweep command (e.g. an actual rg invocation with a sample old path) so the sweep step is copy-paste ready rather than pattern-descriptive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly project-specific policy Claude would not know (alias collision rules, List 1/List 2 split, Hugo permalink case sensitivity), so it avoids explaining known concepts. However, key policies are restated many times — 'inbound stragglers are often in files the PR never touched' appears in the Agent procedure, Modes, Phase 0.5, and Phase 2, and 'No guessing' is repeated in at least five places — so it could clearly be tightened. Not level 2 because the padding is redundancy of genuinely needed rules, not generic explanation; not level 4 because the repetition is pervasive rather than minor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable guidance throughout: 'git diff --name-only main...HEAD', 'BASE=$(git merge-base <target-branch> HEAD)', 'docker buildx bake validate', a real script link ([scripts/scope-pr-files.sh]), and named search trees and URL forms to sweep. Not level 5 because the sweep instructions themselves are descriptive patterns ('path segments that identify the old file') rather than a copy-paste ready command template, and the promised 'reference.md' table storage is conditional rather than provided.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and mandated ('Run in order (mandatory for agents)' steps 1–5), phases 0→3 are cleanly ordered, and there is a Definition of done with validation ('docker buildx bake validate' plus a re-sweep) and a true feedback loop in Phase 3 (validate user answer → warn on failure → ask again → repeat until pass or defer). List 1/List 2 checklists cover the batch-edit risk. This matches the top anchor including validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: clear section headers, an explicit run order, and the only bundle file (scripts/scope-pr-files.sh) is real and clearly linked with an honest scope caveat. A 'Progressive disclosure' section explains when to externalize large mapping tables. Not level 5 because nearly all convention detail (~370 lines) is inlined in SKILL.md with no references/ split, and the 'reference.md' mechanism is described but not present in the bundle; it sits above level 3 since what is present is well-organized and references are clearly signaled.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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: it enumerates concrete phase-by-phase capabilities, gives an explicit 'Triggers on:' list of natural phrases, and defines a distinct Hugo-docs IA-migration niche. Minor room to improve: add more colloquial synonyms for the trigger list and trim agent-directed meta-instructions ('Agents must run the in-file required procedure...') that describe policy rather than capability.

Suggestions

Add one or two more colloquial trigger phrases users would naturally say, e.g. 'moved/renamed a docs page' or 'broken links after content move', and replace the jargon-y 'PR-scoped link/anchor pass' with plainer wording.

Trim the final agent-policy sentences from the description (they belong in the body) to keep it focused on what the skill does and when to use it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, comprehensive actions: 'discover old vs new URLs, add front matter aliases (Phase 1), update in-repo links (Phase 2), interactive List 2 resolution and fragment validation (Phase 3)', plus 'PR-scoped mapping plus whole-content sweeps... or a full-site follow-up'. This matches the anchor 'lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' (the enumerated phase actions) and 'when' via a literal 'Triggers on:' clause with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly. It is not level 4 because the 'when' is as explicit as the good example's 'Use when...' formulation, not merely present-but-imprecise.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit natural trigger phrases are given: '"IA migration", "redirects for moved pages", "fix links after content move", "aliases for old URLs"'. Coverage is good, but some phrasings a user would naturally say are missing (e.g. 'moved a page', 'renamed a doc', 'broken links after a move') and 'PR-scoped link/anchor pass' is internal jargon rather than user language. Not level 5 (synonym coverage is incomplete); clearly above level 3 (several genuinely natural phrases present).

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and narrow — 'Hugo docs information-architecture moves' with alias/link/anchor handling — and triggers are specific to it. Related skills (research, write, review-changes) are named as chaining targets rather than competing, so conflict risk is minimal.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
docker/docs
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.