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

64%

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

75%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 well-structured, actionable instruction skill: a clear five-phase process, a complete copy-paste output template, concrete commands and thresholds, and cleanly signaled one-level-deep references, with only minor conciseness and validation-loop gaps.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is largely lean and assumes Claude's competence (compact Process tree, copy-paste output template), with only minor trim opportunities such as the acknowledged stub sections (Contract, Output Format, Anti-Patterns) that exist purely for the conformance test.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and mostly executable: specific commands ('pdftotext -layout'), a named library (BeautifulSoup), concrete thresholds ('first 2000 chars of each chapter'), exact output paths ('projects/<slug>/playbook.md'), and a complete copy-paste brain-page template; the only gap is the EPUB pipeline being deferred to book-mirror.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear five-phase sequence with an embedded triage checkpoint (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW classification) and a Quality bar checklist; the minor gap is that the quality criteria are not wired into the process as an explicit validate-before-deliver feedback loop.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clear sections with one-level-deep, clearly signaled cross-references (conventions/quality.md, _brain-filing-rules.md, book-mirror, perplexity-research, brain-pdf) and the core artifact inlined appropriately; the conformance-test stub sections are the main organization smell keeping it from a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 clearly communicates a distinctive, concrete capability (reading a source through a specific strategic problem to produce an applied playbook), but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and slips into second-person voice, which together cap completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming the natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user wants to read a source through the lens of a specific problem they face, or extract a playbook from a text').

Rewrite in third person to remove 'you're facing' (e.g., 'through the lens of a specific strategic problem the user is facing') to recover the specificity point.

Add a one-line boundary against book-mirror in the description itself (e.g., 'For whole-life personalization use book-mirror instead') to reduce overlap risk.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and several 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'), which is a solid 4, but reduced by 1 per the second-person penalty for 'you're facing'.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated (read through a lens, produce an applied playbook with short/medium/long-term recommendations), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause — the 'when' is only weakly implied via the negative 'NOT for general book summaries', capping completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant domain keywords appear ('book, article, transcript, or case study', 'strategic problem', 'applied playbook') but the natural trigger phrases users would actually say live in the frontmatter `triggers:` list rather than the description, and common variations/synonyms are absent.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche (problem-lensed strategic reading) is carved out and the 'NOT for general book summaries' boundary reduces conflict, but the description does not distinguish it from the closely related `book-mirror` skill (handled only in the body), leaving minor overlap risk.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 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: 055ac6c

Reviewed: 40 minutes 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.