strategic-reading

Read a book, article, transcript, or case study through the lens of a specific strategic problem you're facing. Produces an applied playbook that maps the source onto the problem and gives short/medium/long-term recommendations. NOT for general book summaries.

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/strategic-reading/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%

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

A well-organized, actionable instruction skill with a concrete output template and clear phased process. Its weaknesses are conformance-test scaffolding that pads token usage and a process flow lacking embedded validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Remove or merge the "Contract", "Output Format", and "Anti-Patterns" scaffolding sections that only exist for the conformance test, folding any real content into the relevant body sections to improve conciseness.

Insert an explicit validation checkpoint in the process (e.g. before Phase 5, "verify every recommendation cites the source and every HIGH chapter was read") to lift workflow clarity.

Either inline the EPUB extraction pipeline or make the deferral to book-mirror an explicit, labeled optional reference rather than a dependency inside the main process.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean, but several sections are redundant scaffolding — "Output Format" and "Anti-Patterns" state they "exists for the conformance test", "Contract" restates the body, and "What this is" re-states the frontmatter description — so not every token earns its place.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides a full copy-paste brain-page markdown template, named tooling ("pdftotext -layout", BeautifulSoup), concrete output paths ("projects/<slug>/playbook.md"), and a worked citation example — concrete actionable guidance for an instruction skill.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The five-phase process (Ingest → Triage → Deep read → Synthesize → Write) is clearly sequenced, but there are no embedded validation checkpoints in the flow; the quality bar is a separate section rather than a "validate then proceed" step.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist; the body uses clean one-level markdown links to conventions and sibling skills ("../conventions/quality.md", "skills/book-mirror/SKILL.md") and is organized into clear sections with no nested or monolithic structure.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

82%

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 specific, well-scoped description that names concrete actions and natural trigger terms with a clear niche. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit positive "Use when..." clause, which leaves the triggering condition implied rather than stated.

Suggestions

Add an explicit positive trigger clause such as "Use when the user wants to apply a specific source to a current strategic problem" to lift completeness.

Mirror one or two of the natural trigger phrases (e.g. "read this through the lens of") into the description so the "when" is unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — "Read a book, article, transcript, or case study through the lens of a specific strategic problem", "Produces an applied playbook that maps the source onto the problem", and "gives short/medium/long-term recommendations" — matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what it does, but there is no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause; the "when" is only implied via "through the lens of a specific strategic problem you're facing", and the "NOT for general book summaries" is disambiguation rather than positive trigger guidance.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural terms a user would say — "book", "article", "transcript", "case study", "strategic problem", "playbook", and "book summaries" — giving good coverage rather than jargon.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The explicit "NOT for general book summaries" plus the narrow strategic-problem framing carves a clear niche unlikely to conflict with general summary or research skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 2 suspicious	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: garrytan/gbrain
Path: skills/strategic-reading/SKILL.md
Commit: 3fafb69

Reviewed: about 20 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.