CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

visualization-best-practices

Review chart choice, labeling, accessibility, and storytelling quality for existing visualizations. Use as an explicit/manual helper for critique and cleanup, not as the main owner for scientific figure production or general chart generation.

59

Quality

70%

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 ./bundled/skills/visualization-best-practices/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is concise and well-organized for a simple review-helper skill with appropriate boundaries, but it lacks concrete review criteria, specific checklists, and an explicitly sequenced workflow, which caps its actionability and workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Add a concrete review checklist with specific items per category (e.g., "Labels: axis titles present, units stated, no overlapping ticks; Color: colorblind-safe palette, no red/green-only encoding") to lift actionability.

Frame the work as an explicit ordered sequence — e.g., 1) identify the chart type and audience, 2) check encodings/labels/scales/color/accessibility, 3) list problems, 4) propose concrete fixes, 5) return an accessibility/audience-fit checklist — to improve workflow clarity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is ~30 lean lines with no concept-explaining fluff, assuming Claude's competence ("Treat this skill as an explicit/manual review helper", tight bullet lists). It is not score 2 because nothing is padded or unnecessary, and every section earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Enumerates concrete target areas ("Fixing labels, legends, scales, color choices, or accessibility issues") but provides no specific review criteria, checklist items, or examples of what to check within each — it describes categories rather than instructing concretely. It is not score 1 because the target areas are concrete and named, and not score 3 because there are no specific, copy-ready review checks or worked examples.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The review→critique→fix→checklist intent is understandable and the skill is simple/non-destructive, but the process is not framed as an explicit ordered sequence and "Typical Outputs" lists deliverables without sequencing or checkpoints. It is not score 3 because no explicit step ordering is given, and not score 1 because the single action is clearly identifiable.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed, and sections are well-organized (Positioning, When to Use, Not For/Boundaries, Typical Outputs, Related Skills); cross-skill pointers are not nested bundle references. It is not score 2 because the organization is clear and nothing should be split out to a separate file.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 clearly differentiated from sibling visualization skills, but its trigger terms and use-when guidance are framed as role/positioning rather than concrete user-trigger conditions, holding completeness and trigger-term quality below the top level.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when" clause naming concrete user triggers, e.g., "Use when the user asks to critique or clean up an existing chart, fix labels/legends/scales/colors, or improve a figure's readability."

Include more natural user-facing trigger phrasings ("make my chart clearer", "fix this dashboard", "improve this figure") alongside the current task-type vocabulary to raise trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete review actions — "Review chart choice, labeling, accessibility, and storytelling quality" — matching the anchor for several specific concrete actions. It is not score 2 because it enumerates four distinct action areas rather than naming only a domain and a few actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers "what" (review chart choice/labeling/accessibility/storytelling) and includes a "Use as an explicit/manual helper for critique and cleanup" clause, but the "when" is expressed as role/positioning rather than explicit user-trigger conditions. It is not score 3 because there is no concrete "Use when <trigger>" statement of the kind in the good examples, and not score 1 because both what and a use-context are present.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant natural terms ("chart", "labeling", "accessibility", "visualizations", "critique") but frames them as task types rather than the concrete trigger phrasings a user would say (e.g., "make my chart clearer", "fix my dashboard"), missing common variations. It is not score 3 because coverage of literal user trigger phrases is incomplete, and not score 1 because several genuinely natural keywords are present.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicitly carves out a niche — "not as the main owner for scientific figure production or general chart generation" — and the body reinforces boundaries against named sibling skills, making wrong-skill triggering unlikely. It is not score 2 because the distinction is explicit and specific rather than merely "somewhat specific."

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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.

Validation14 / 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
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.