CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

gstack-openclaw-ceo-review

Use when asked to review a plan, challenge a proposal, run a CEO review, poke holes in an approach, think bigger about scope, or decide whether to expand or reduce the plan.

46

Quality

47%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./openclaw/skills/gstack-openclaw-ceo-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

47%

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

This is a comprehensive plan review framework with excellent workflow structure and clear sequencing, but it suffers significantly from verbosity. The 18 'Cognitive Patterns' and extensive philosophical framing consume tokens explaining concepts Claude already understands. The skill would benefit from being roughly 40-50% shorter while maintaining its strong structural bones, and from concrete examples of review output.

Suggestions

Cut the 'Cognitive Patterns' section entirely or reduce to 3-4 most unique/non-obvious items—Claude already knows inversion thinking, focus as subtraction, etc.

Add a concrete example of a review finding (e.g., a sample Section 2 error map entry showing the exact format: exception name, trigger, rescue action, user-visible result)

Extract the 11 review sections into a referenced REVIEW_SECTIONS.md file, keeping only section names and one-line descriptions in the main SKILL.md

Trim the Philosophy section to just the four mode names with one-sentence descriptions—the detailed explanations are repeated in Step 0D anyway

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is extremely verbose at ~200+ lines. The 'Cognitive Patterns' section lists 18 abstract thinking principles that Claude already understands (inversion, focus as subtraction, etc.). The philosophy section over-explains posture modes. Much of this content is motivational framing rather than actionable instruction, wasting significant token budget.

1 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides a structured framework with specific steps (Step 0 sub-steps, 11 review sections) and concrete output format (CEO Review Summary). However, it lacks executable examples—no sample review output, no example of how to format findings, no concrete illustration of what a good vs bad review looks like. The review sections are described at a high level rather than with specific, copy-paste-ready templates.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced: Step 0 (scope challenge + mode selection with explicit user approval gate) → 11 review sections (with anti-skip rule) → Output summary. There are explicit checkpoints ('Ask the user which approach to proceed with. Do NOT proceed without approval'), feedback loops ('one issue at a time'), and completion status indicators (DONE/DONE_WITH_CONCERNS/BLOCKED). The process is well-defined for a non-destructive review task.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is a monolithic wall of text with no references to supporting files despite its length. The 18 cognitive patterns, detailed mode descriptions, and 11 review sections could benefit from being split into referenced files. The only external reference is saving output to 'memory/' which is appropriate. For a skill this long, inline content should be better distributed.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

47%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description functions almost entirely as a 'Use when...' clause without ever explaining what the skill actually does. While it has excellent trigger term coverage with natural phrases users would say, the complete absence of capability description (the 'what') is a critical gap. Adding a clear statement of what the skill produces or how it operates would significantly improve it.

Suggestions

Add a 'what it does' statement before the trigger clause, e.g., 'Provides structured critical analysis of plans and proposals, identifying risks, gaps, and opportunities for improvement.'

Clarify the output format or methodology, e.g., 'Generates a CEO-style review with strengths, weaknesses, risks, and recommendations for scope adjustments.'

Consider specifying what distinguishes this from general feedback or review skills, e.g., mentioning the strategic/executive lens or specific frameworks used.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names several actions like 'review a plan', 'challenge a proposal', 'run a CEO review', 'poke holes in an approach', and 'think bigger about scope', but these are more trigger scenarios than concrete capabilities the skill performs. It doesn't describe what the skill actually does (e.g., 'Generates critical analysis of plans' or 'Produces structured feedback').

2 / 3

Completeness

The description only addresses 'when' (trigger scenarios) but completely omits 'what' — it never explains what the skill actually does or produces. There is no description of the skill's capabilities, outputs, or methodology.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes strong natural trigger terms that users would actually say: 'review a plan', 'challenge a proposal', 'CEO review', 'poke holes', 'think bigger', 'expand or reduce the plan'. These are varied and cover multiple natural phrasings a user might use.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Terms like 'review a plan' and 'challenge a proposal' are somewhat specific to strategic/critical review, but could overlap with general planning, feedback, or analysis skills. 'CEO review' adds some distinctiveness, but the broad scope ('expand or reduce the plan') could cause conflicts.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
garrytan/gstack
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.