CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

multi-ai-planning

Create production-ready, agent-executable plans using verification-first approach, hierarchical decomposition, dependency mapping, and quality gates. Optional multi-AI research integration (Claude + Gemini + Codex). Use when planning complex features, migrations, refactorings, security implementations, or any multi-step agentic workflows requiring rigorous verification and parallel execution coordination.

Quality

75%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/multi-ai-planning/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

58%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 delivers an exceptionally clear 6-step workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops, but it is severely bloated and its file structure is broken: most referenced scripts, templates, and schemas do not exist in the bundle, while the one real script goes unmentioned. Roughly half the content is blank templates and scaffolding Claude could produce itself.

Suggestions

Cut SKILL.md to a concise workflow overview and move the per-step templates and the full 5-dimension quality-scoring rubric into reference files (e.g., templates.md, quality-rubric.md), removing the repetitive Purpose/Inputs/Outputs/Time-Estimate scaffolding.

Fix or remove references to non-existent bundle files (scripts/validate-schema.sh, scripts/generate-plan-md.sh, scripts/visualize-deps.sh, templates/, examples/, plan.schema.json) and reference the existing scripts/verify-plan.sh by name where it serves that validation role.

Replace the illustrative TypeScript snippets (undefined task(), executeTask(), verifyTask()) with either real executable commands or a brief note that they are schematic, since the pseudocode is presented as runnable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~1140-line body repeats a Purpose/Inputs/Process/Outputs/Validation/Time-Estimate scaffold for every step and inlines blank fill-in templates (objective, scope, approach options, dependency analysis) that Claude can generate unprompted, and it explains concepts Claude already knows (SMART criteria, critical path). Not 1 because the bulk is skill-specific process rather than generic concept explanation.

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete commands ("git tag -a cp-001 -m 'Schema and OAuth'", "npm test -- src/auth/tokens.test.ts") and exact JSON/markdown task formats. Below 5 because key commands invoke scripts absent from the bundle (scripts/validate-schema.sh, scripts/generate-plan-md.sh, scripts/visualize-deps.sh) and the TypeScript snippets use undefined functions (task(), executeTask(), verifyTask()) without justification.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six steps are clearly sequenced, each with an explicit validation checklist, and Step 5 contains a true feedback loop ("If <90: Apply fixes, return to relevant step, re-verify") plus quality gates and checkpoint strategy — matching the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and checklists.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: the body references scripts/validate-schema.sh, scripts/generate-plan-md.sh, scripts/visualize-deps.sh, templates/PLAN_TEMPLATE.md, templates/VERIFICATION_TEMPLATE.md, examples/, and plan.schema.json — none of which exist; only references/task-tool-coordination.md resolves, and the existing scripts/verify-plan.sh is never referenced. Bulk content (all step templates, the full 5-dimension scoring rubric) is inlined that belongs in separate files. Not 1 because sections are well-structured and one reference is valid.

2 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 is a strong example of what/when structure with concrete trigger phrases and a distinct multi-AI planning niche. Its weaknesses are mild: some capability phrasing is methodological rather than concrete, and trigger coverage misses a few natural synonyms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Create production-ready, agent-executable plans using verification-first approach, hierarchical decomposition, dependency mapping, and quality gates" lists several named techniques. It is not 5 because phrases like "verification-first approach" and "quality gates" are methodological labels rather than concrete artifact-level actions; not 3 because four-plus specific techniques are enumerated alongside the output artifact.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Create production-ready, agent-executable plans using verification-first approach...") and when ("Use when planning complex features, migrations, refactorings, security implementations, or any multi-step agentic workflows...") with concrete trigger phrases — matches the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"planning complex features, migrations, refactorings, security implementations, or any multi-step agentic workflows" provides good natural keyword coverage. Missing common variations like "task breakdown", "implementation plan", or "project roadmap" keep it below 5; it exceeds 3 because users would naturally say several of these phrases.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Optional multi-AI research integration (Claude + Gemini + Codex)" and multi-agent coordination carve a niche, but "planning complex features, migrations, refactorings" is broad enough to overlap generic planning/project skills. Minor overlap risk, not minimal.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (1147 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz

Path

skills/multi-ai-planning/SKILL.md

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.