CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

tutorial

Use when first using Specialist Agent, onboarding a new team member, or wanting to explore available agents and skills.

Quality

61%

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/tutorial/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.

The body is a highly actionable, well-sequenced tutorial with concrete copy-paste examples throughout — its strongest attributes. Its weaknesses are structural: everything lives inline in one long file (only one level is needed per invocation) and the recap/quick-reference sections add redundancy, which costs both conciseness and progressive disclosure. Splitting levels into per-file references and trimming recaps would raise both dimensions without losing actionability.

Suggestions

Split each level into its own reference file (e.g. references/beginner.md, references/intermediate.md, references/advanced.md) and have SKILL.md load only the file matching $ARGUMENTS — this addresses progressive_disclosure (3) and most of the token bloat in conciseness (3).

Trim the three 'Complete' recap sections and the Quick Reference tables that duplicate content already covered inline, or fold the quick reference into a single reference file instead of restating both tables in SKILL.md (conciseness 3).

Add brief handling for an unrecognized $ARGUMENTS value (e.g., fall back to beginner and say so) and a one-line recovery hint per level for when an exercise fails (workflow_clarity 4).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Individual sections are tight ("Agents are AI specialists. Each one does something specific."), but ~340 lines load into context when only one of the three levels is relevant per invocation, and the three 'Complete' recap sections plus the Quick Reference tables restate material already taught inline. This is more than the 'minor instances' of anchor 4, though well short of anchor 2's padded explanations.

3 / 5

Actionability

Every step gives a copy-paste-ready example: exact user prompts ("Create a Button component with label and onClick props"), exact commands ("/plan add user authentication with login and registration", "npx specialist-agent create-agent @my-agent"), a complete agent-definition markdown template, and named profiles. As an instruction-only skill its guidance is fully concrete and covers the common cases, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The learning path is clearly sequenced: numbered steps within each level, 'Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced Complete' recaps, and explicit 'Next: Try /tutorial intermediate' progression gates. It falls short of anchor 5 because there are no feedback loops or recovery guidance (e.g., what to do when an exercise fails or a user is stuck), which keeps it at 'clear sequence, most checkpoints present'.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The file is well-sectioned with headers and tables, but no bundle files exist — all three tutorial levels plus the quick reference are inlined in a single ~340-line SKILL.md when each level clearly belongs in its own reference file loaded by $ARGUMENTS. 'Content that should be separate is inline' with good structure fits anchor 3; anchor 4 is not reached because there are no well-signaled references at all.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

36%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 pure trigger clause: it answers 'when to use this' with three reasonably natural conditions but never says what the skill actually does. Scoring only what is explicitly stated, the missing 'what' caps completeness low and leaves specificity with no capabilities to reward. Adding a leading capability statement (e.g., an interactive hands-on tutorial with beginner/intermediate/advanced levels) plus tutorial/getting-started trigger synonyms would lift most dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'what' clause before the 'Use when' clause, e.g. "Runs an interactive, hands-on tutorial for Specialist Agent with beginner, intermediate, and advanced exercises. Use when..." — this directly addresses completeness (2) and specificity (2).

Include the natural trigger synonyms users actually say for this skill: "tutorial", "getting started", "learn Specialist Agent" — these are the most common phrasings and are currently absent (trigger_term_quality 3).

Scope the overlapping triggers to reduce conflict risk, e.g. "onboarding a new team member to Specialist Agent" and "exploring Specialist Agent's available agents and skills" (distinctiveness 3).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names its domain ("first using Specialist Agent", "onboarding a new team member", "explore available agents and skills") but states no concrete actions or capabilities the skill performs — there is no 'what' verb at all. It sits between anchor 1 (which requires entirely vague, abstract language) and anchor 3 (which requires 1-2 named actions), so 2 is the best fit.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and multi-part ("Use when first using... onboarding... or wanting to explore..."), but the 'what' — that this is an interactive tutorial with hands-on exercises at beginner/intermediate/advanced levels — is entirely unstated. This matches anchor 2 ('only when is present without what') and is below anchor 3, which requires a clear 'what'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers like "onboarding a new team member" and "explore available agents and skills" are natural phrases users would say, but the most common variations for a tutorial skill — "tutorial", "getting started", "learn" — are all absent. This is more than 'a few natural terms missing', so it does not reach anchor 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger "first using Specialist Agent" is distinct, but "onboarding a new team member" and "explore available agents and skills" are not scoped to this tool and could fire for agent-listing or general onboarding skills. Somewhat specific but with real overlap risk against similar skills, fitting anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk'.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

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.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

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

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

fernandezbaptiste/specialist-agent

Path

skills/tutorial/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.