CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-multi

Comprehensive multi-dimensional skill reviews across structure, content, quality, usability, and integration. Task-based operations with automated validation, manual assessment, scoring rubrics, and improvement recommendations. Use when reviewing skills, ensuring quality, validating production readiness, identifying improvements, or conducting quality assurance.

64

Quality

77%

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/review-multi/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 thorough, well-structured operational skill with real scripts, clear checklists, and good reference navigation. Its main weakness is verbosity from repeated scoring-system content and heavy inlining that bloats SKILL.md beyond a lean overview.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the scoring material: state the weighted-average formula, weight rationale, scoring scale, and production-readiness table once (in the Scoring System section) and reference them from the Overview and Quick Reference instead of repeating them.

Move the full per-operation example outputs and detailed checklists into the corresponding references/*.md guides, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview with the operation summaries and the Quick Reference tables.

Tighten the Best Practices and Common Mistakes sections to concrete directives, removing the padded rationale sentences that restate what the checklists already imply.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~1,150-line body is mostly useful operational guidance, but it repeats material — the weighted-average formula appears three times, the weight rationale and scoring scale twice, and the production-readiness table twice — and the lengthy illustrative output blocks pad the file, placing it at "mostly efficient but could be tightened."

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, copy-pasteable commands reference real scripts (validate-structure.py, check-patterns.py, generate-review-report.py, review-runner.py, all present in scripts/) with detailed checklists and scoring criteria, but some operations rely on illustrative example output rather than fully runnable steps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Each operation has a numbered process, validation checklist, scoring criteria, and outputs, and Fast Check Mode shows an explicit validate→fix→re-run loop; the comprehensive sequence is clear but feedback loops are more implied than explicit in the main flow.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A "For More Information" section cleanly signals one-level-deep references to seven real reference files and four scripts, but SKILL.md itself is heavy at ~1,150 lines with the full scoring system and all five operations fully inlined rather than split out.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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, third-person description that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it with natural trigger phrases and a distinct niche. Minor gains are possible by sharpening the action list with more granular verbs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (multi-dimensional skill reviews) and several concrete actions — "automated validation, manual assessment, scoring rubrics, and improvement recommendations" — but the actions stay somewhat abstract rather than granular, so it sits below the comprehensive 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both what ("multi-dimensional skill reviews... automated validation, manual assessment, scoring rubrics, and improvement recommendations") and when ("Use when reviewing skills, ensuring quality, validating production readiness, identifying improvements, or conducting quality assurance") are answered explicitly with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present — "reviewing skills", "ensuring quality", "validating production readiness", "identifying improvements", "quality assurance" — giving good keyword coverage, though a few common synonyms are missing versus the comprehensive 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (skill QA / production-readiness review) with distinct triggers that are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the minimal-conflict-risk 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (1158 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: 2 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz
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.