persona-team-lead
Lead a team — run standups, coordinate tasks, and communicate.
50
38%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/persona-team-lead/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
25%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 is too vague and generic to effectively differentiate itself from other skills. It lists broad management activities without concrete specifics about what the skill actually produces or automates, and it completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause to guide skill selection. The trigger terms are partially relevant but miss many natural user phrasings.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about running standups, tracking team progress, generating meeting agendas, or coordinating sprint tasks.'
Replace vague actions like 'communicate' with concrete outputs, e.g., 'Generates standup agendas, creates task assignment summaries, drafts team status updates, and tracks action items.'
Add distinctive keywords and file/tool references to reduce conflict risk, e.g., mention specific formats like 'standup notes', 'sprint boards', 'daily check-ins', or 'team retrospectives'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names some actions ('run standups, coordinate tasks, and communicate') but these are fairly generic management activities without concrete specifics about what the skill actually does (e.g., generate standup agendas, assign tasks, draft status updates). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes a vague 'what' (lead a team with standups, tasks, communication) but completely lacks a 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance. Per rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also weak, so this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'standups', 'coordinate tasks', and 'communicate', but misses common variations users might say such as 'daily meeting', 'sprint', 'project management', 'team coordination', 'status update', or 'task assignment'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Coordinate tasks' and 'communicate' are extremely generic phrases that could overlap with project management, task tracking, communication, meeting facilitation, and many other skills. The description lacks a clear niche. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
52%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill is admirably concise and avoids over-explaining, but it reads more like a cheat sheet of commands than an actionable guide for leading a team. It lacks concrete examples of workflow outputs, a clear daily/weekly sequence, and any validation or feedback steps. The references to external workflows are helpful but insufficiently described.
Suggestions
Add a sequenced daily/weekly workflow (e.g., 'Morning: run standup → share in Chat → review blockers; Weekly: generate digest → update OKR sheet') with explicit checkpoints to improve workflow clarity.
Include at least one concrete example showing a workflow invocation and its expected output (e.g., a sample standup report) to improve actionability.
Add brief one-line descriptions or links for each referenced workflow (e.g., '+standup-report: collects updates from Calendar and produces a formatted summary') to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient. No unnecessary explanations of what standups or OKRs are. Every line provides a concrete command or actionable tip. No padding or redundancy. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill references specific workflow commands and flags, which is good, but all guidance is at the invocation level — there are no concrete examples of inputs/outputs, no sample standup report, and no illustration of what these workflows actually produce or how to customize them. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no sequenced multi-step workflow. The instructions are a flat list of independent actions with no ordering, no validation checkpoints, and no feedback loops. For a team lead persona that coordinates daily/weekly processes, a clear sequence (e.g., morning routine, weekly cycle) with checkpoints would be expected. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external workflow files and utility skills, providing some structure. However, the references are not clearly signaled with links or descriptions of what each workflow contains, and there's no quick-start section or navigation guidance to help discover the right workflow for a given situation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- googleworkspace/cli
- Commit
c7c6646
- 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.