CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

deepline-gtm

GTM prospecting, enrichment, outreach, and Deepline Play work/audits. Providers: adyntel,affinity,ai_ark,akta,allegrow,amplemarket,apify,attention,attio,aviato,bettercontact,bigquery,bluesky,bounceban,brave,browserbase,builtwith,clay,clickhouse,cloudflare,contactout,contextdev,crustdata-v3,customer_db,databricks,dataforseo,datagma,deepline_ip_to_company,deepline_native,deeplineagent,discolike,dropleads,edges,emailbison,emailguard,enformion,enigma,exa,findymail,firecrawl,fireflies,firmable,forager,fullenrich,generic_http,gong,google_ads_audiences,google_workspace,govfiles,grain,hackernews,harvestapi,heyreach,hubspot,hunter,icypeas,instantly,intercom,ipqs,kaspr,kernel,leadmagic,lemlist,limadata,linkedin_ads_audiences,luma,lusha,meta_audiences,nooks,openmart,opensosdata,openwebninja,outreach,parallel,peopledatalabs,podscan,postgres,predictleads,prospeo,quickenrich,rapidapi,redshift,rocketreach,salesforce,salesforge,salesloft,scrapecreators,searchbug,sec_edgar,sentrion,serper,slack,smartlead,snowflake,socrata,….

55

Quality

69%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Failed to scan

The risk profile of this skill

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/deepline-gtm/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 an unusually concrete operational manual — exact commands, templates, and pilot/validation loops — undermined by broken information architecture: roughly 150 referenced files are absent from the bundle and the bundle's own reference and script files are never reachable from SKILL.md. Redundancy across the routing, recipes, and approval sections also costs tokens without adding guidance.

Suggestions

Ship or remove the dangling references: either bundle finding-companies-and-contacts.md, enriching-and-researching.md, writing-outreach.md, recipes/, provider-playbooks/, and prompts.json, or delete those links — currently every routing instruction dead-ends.

Link the files that actually exist: the 9 references/*.md (clay-*, monitor-*, plays-*, contact-accuracy) and 13 scripts/*.py are orphaned; add a routing row or section for them so the real bundle is discoverable.

Consolidate duplicated guidance: state the monitors access-gate and the pilot/run/export/price loop once (§2.5 or §4) and reference it from the routing tables instead of restating it, and collapse §5's 'quick-reference summary' back into §2 — also fix the section numbering (there is no §1 and §3.1 is an empty pointer).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense directive prose with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but it carries substantial redundancy: the monitors access-gate is stated twice nearly verbatim (routing table row and recipes table row), §5 'Provider routing' explicitly re-summarizes §2, pilot/run/export guidance repeats across §2.5, §3.4, and §4, and a single paragraph lists ~140 provider-playbook links. Mostly efficient but clearly could be tightened — anchor 3, not 4, because the duplication is a section-level pattern rather than minor instances.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable throughout: exact Quick Start commands, copy-paste play invocations (`deepline plays run prebuilt/name-and-domain-to-email-waterfall-batch --input '{"csv":"leads.csv"}'`), a verbatim approval-message template with exact section headers, exact billing/inspection commands, and even an exact required final line ('Want me to use that, or adjust it?'). Specific examples cover the common cases — matches the anchor 5 example set.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops (pilot → inspect per-leg columns → fix → scale; 'If pilot fails, fix and re-run until successful before asking'; mandatory `plays check` before running; checkpoint-the-deliverable rule), satisfying the batch-operation validation requirement. Not 5: section numbering is incoherent (no §1; Quick Start → '2)' → '2.5)' → '3)'), §3.1 is an empty pointer to another doc, and the duplicated monitor gating text appears with slightly different framing in two places.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The routing tables signal references clearly and one level deep, but none of the linked files exist in the bundle: finding-companies-and-contacts.md, enriching-and-researching.md, writing-outreach.md, all 9 recipes/*.md, all ~140 provider-playbooks/*.md, and prompts.json are all missing — while the 9 files that do exist in references/ and the 13 scripts are never linked from the body. Judged against the actual bundle structure, navigation is broken in both directions: every reference is a dead link and every real file is orphaned. This is worse than 'references present but not clearly signaled' (3), though not the deeply-nested impossible-to-navigate case (1) since the intended structure itself is shallow and well-signaled.

2 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

57%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 answers 'what' clearly at the domain level but never says when to use the skill, and most of its length is a truncated provider-name catalog rather than concrete capabilities. It works as a provider index but underperforms as a trigger description.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to build lead lists, enrich contacts/CSVs, research companies or people for GTM, run or audit Deepline Plays, or work with a listed provider (Clay, HubSpot, Snowflake, etc.).'

Trim the provider catalog to the most commonly named providers (or move it to a reference file) and end it cleanly — the list currently terminates mid-stream with '….', which reads as truncation, not coverage.

Add concrete action verbs that match what users ask for ('build lead lists', 'find emails/LinkedIn URLs', 'validate contacts', 'write cold outreach') so the description distinguishes itself from generic database/CRM/Slack skills that share its provider names.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"GTM prospecting, enrichment, outreach, and Deepline Play work/audits" names the domain and a handful of action labels, but the rest of the description is a ~150-item provider-name dump ("Providers: adyntel,affinity,ai_ark,…") that names tools, not capabilities — matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the 'several specific concrete actions' anchor above it.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (GTM prospecting, enrichment, outreach, Deepline Play work/audits) but there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger clause anywhere, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because 'when' is entirely absent, not merely implicit; not 2 because the 'what' is clear, not vague.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present (GTM, prospecting, enrichment, outreach, play) plus many provider names users would actually say (clay, hubspot, hunter, zoominfo, snowflake), giving good keyword coverage. Not 5: common variations like 'lead list', 'cold email', 'B2B', or 'contact finding' are missing, and the provider list is literally truncated mid-stream ("…,snowflake,socrata,….").

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It is anchored to a distinct platform niche (Deepline, GTM), but the provider list claims postgres, bigquery, snowflake, databricks, slack, salesforce, and hubspot, so it would plausibly trigger for routine database, CRM, and Slack work and overlaps with the body's own separate 'deepline-research' skill. Somewhat specific but real overlap risk — fits anchor 3 better than the 'minor overlap risk' of 4 or the 'high overlap with many similar skills' of 2.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 139 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
getaero-io/gtm-eng-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.