system-reviewer

Review the skill development ecosystem itself - assess ecosystem health, identify systemic issues, evaluate toolkit effectiveness, and recommend system-level improvements. Task-based operations for ecosystem assessment, toolkit evaluation, process review, and system optimization. Use when evaluating ecosystem health, identifying systemic improvements, optimizing the toolkit itself, or conducting meta-level ecosystem reviews.

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/system-reviewer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

56%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 well-structured with clear sequenced operations and defined outputs, but it is instruction-heavy without executable specifics for gathering the metrics it asks to assess, and it inlines content that belongs in reference files. Redundant restatements of the same distinction inflate token cost without adding information.

Suggestions

Trim the repeated system-vs-individual distinction to a single statement and remove the 'When to Use' section that duplicates the frontmatter description, cutting token cost without losing information.

Add concrete mechanics for each operation: where the skill inventory lives (paths), the command to invoke review-multi, and how build-time or utilization data is actually obtained.

Move each operation's detailed process and the full example health report into reference files (e.g., references/operations.md, references/example-report.md), keeping SKILL.md as the overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly functional but repeats the system-vs-individual distinction three times (Overview, Best Practice 3, Quick Reference), and 'When to Use' duplicates the frontmatter description; several padded restatements could be trimmed.	3 / 5
Actionability	Some concrete guidance exists ('Run review-multi validation on all skills', a full example health report), but there are no executable commands, file paths, or data sources explaining how to actually compute metrics like 'Average Structure Score' or build-time progression.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Each operation has a clear numbered 5-step sequence with defined outputs and time estimates, and the example report grounds the expected format; verification of findings is only implicit, which keeps it below 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The Quick Reference table provides navigation, but all five operations plus a ~50-line example report are inlined in a single ~385-line file with no reference files; per-operation details and examples would be better split out.	3 / 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.

A strong description that clearly states both capabilities and explicit trigger conditions in third person. Its main weaknesses are a redundant restating second sentence and reliance on internal jargon rather than natural user phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists several specific actions — 'assess ecosystem health, identify systemic issues, evaluate toolkit effectiveness, and recommend system-level improvements' — but the second sentence ('Task-based operations for ecosystem assessment, toolkit evaluation, process review, and system optimization') merely restates them, adding padding rather than coverage.	4 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' (review the ecosystem, assess health, evaluate toolkit, recommend improvements) and 'when' with a concrete 'Use when...' clause enumerating trigger scenarios.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'Use when evaluating ecosystem health, identifying systemic improvements, optimizing the toolkit itself, or conducting meta-level ecosystem reviews' gives good keyword coverage, though the terms are domain-internal jargon and miss natural layperson variations a user might say.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'the skill development ecosystem itself' and 'meta-level' carve a clear niche, but there is minor overlap risk with closely related sibling skills (e.g., individual skill reviewers) that the description does not distinguish itself from.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 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
allowed_tools_field	'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz
Path: skills/system-reviewer/SKILL.md
Commit: 93ed392

Reviewed: 14 hours 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.