CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

docx-comment-reply

Reply to comments (批注) in Word .docx/.doc files: extract comment context, draft replies, write threaded replies back, and validate OOXML.

60

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./bundled/skills/docx-comment-reply/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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 a concise, actionable, well-sequenced workflow with explicit validation for the destructive write-back step and real referenced scripts. Main gaps are placeholder-heavy commands and an out-of-bundle validation path.

Suggestions

Replace opaque placeholders (<xxx>, <timestamp>) with a concrete annotated example showing actual generated filenames, so commands are copy-paste ready.

Move or copy validate.py into the skill's own scripts/ bundle (or document its location) so the validation command resolves within the skill rather than via ..\docx\ooxml\scripts.

Add a short note on how to obtain the --unpacked directory path (it is referenced in step 3 but only implied by step 1's output).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of what a docx or comment is), with only minor redundancy between the 输出物 list and the command examples; not a 5 because the output-file list and placeholder conventions could be tightened further.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete PowerShell commands with full argument lists are given for extraction, write-back, and validation, and referenced scripts (extract_comment_context.py, apply_comment_replies.py) exist in the bundle; kept at 4 because placeholders like <xxx> and <timestamp> require the user to fill in details.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered 4-step workflow includes an explicit "校验(必须)" validation step and a separate validate.py call, providing a validate→fix→retry feedback loop for the destructive/batch write-back operation per the rubric's destructive-operation requirement.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and scripts are referenced as one-level-deep bundle files that exist (scripts/*.py); references/ and assets/ are empty, and the validation path points to ..\docx\ooxml\scripts\validate.py outside the bundle, which is a minor navigation gap.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 specific and distinct, clearly conveying what the skill does across the comment-reply lifecycle. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and somewhat thin natural-language trigger coverage.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when ..." clause naming the situations that should trigger this skill, e.g. replying to reviewer comments, 批注, or comment threads in Word documents.

Broaden trigger-term coverage with natural synonyms and file extensions: "Word documents", "annotations", "review comments", ".docx/.doc", "threaded replies".

Mention the .doc→.docx conversion handling in the description so the supported-input capability is explicit rather than inferred.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"extract comment context, draft replies, write threaded replies back, and validate OOXML" lists several specific concrete actions; not a fully comprehensive 5 because coverage of the .doc conversion and validation scope is implied rather than enumerated.

4 / 5

Completeness

The description gives a clear "what" (extract, draft, write back, validate) but lacks any explicit "when/Use when" trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "Word .docx/.doc files", "comments (批注)", and "replies" are relevant, but common natural variations ("Word documents", "annotations", "track changes", ".docx") are only partly covered and there is no user-style trigger phrase.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Reply to comments (批注) in Word .docx/.doc files ... write threaded replies back" is a distinct niche with minimal conflict risk; only minor overlap with generic docx-editing skills keeps it below 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills
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.