generate-tasks
Generates phased plans or step-by-step task lists in Markdown from a PRD or feature description. Tasks include checkboxes, relevant file paths, test commands, YARD documentation, and code-review gates for Rails-oriented workflows.
78
72%
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 ./generate-tasks/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
67%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 excels at specificity and distinctiveness, clearly articulating what it produces (phased plans with checkboxes, file paths, test commands, YARD docs, code-review gates) for a well-defined Rails-oriented niche. Its main weaknesses are the lack of an explicit 'Use when...' clause and limited coverage of natural trigger terms a user might employ when requesting this kind of planning assistance.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to break down a PRD, create an implementation plan, or generate a task list for a Rails feature.'
Include more natural trigger term variations such as 'implementation plan', 'feature breakdown', 'project tasks', 'todo list', or 'work plan' to improve matching against common user phrasing.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: generates phased plans, step-by-step task lists in Markdown, includes checkboxes, file paths, test commands, YARD documentation, and code-review gates. Very detailed about what it produces. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers 'what does this do' with detailed capabilities, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The 'when' is only implied (when given a PRD or feature description). | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'PRD', 'task lists', 'Rails', 'step-by-step', and 'phased plans', but misses common user variations like 'implementation plan', 'breakdown', 'todo list', 'project plan', or 'feature planning'. A user might not naturally say 'YARD documentation' or 'code-review gates'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with its specific niche: Rails-oriented workflow planning from PRDs, with YARD docs and code-review gates. Unlikely to conflict with generic planning or coding skills due to the very specific domain combination. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, highly actionable skill with excellent workflow clarity and strong test-gate enforcement. Its main weakness is length — there's meaningful redundancy between the HARD-GATE, Process, Common Mistakes, and Red Flags sections that could be consolidated. The content would also benefit from splitting the output templates and reference tables into separate files to improve progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Consolidate overlapping guidance between HARD-GATE, Process steps, Common Mistakes, and Red Flags — several constraints (e.g., 'always include task 0.0', 'never implement before test', 'include file paths') are stated 2-3 times across these sections.
Move the detailed output format templates (Detailed Checklist and Phased Plan) into a separate reference file (e.g., `TASK_LIST_TEMPLATES.md`) and link to it, keeping only a brief summary inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long (~200+ lines) and includes some redundancy — the HARD-GATE section repeats constraints that are also stated in the Process section and Common Mistakes table. The Common Mistakes and Red Flags tables, while useful, overlap significantly. However, most content is domain-specific and not explaining things Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, executable guidance: exact file naming conventions, specific markdown output templates with checkbox syntax, exact git commands, test-gate sequences with explicit steps (write spec → run → verify failure → implement → run → verify pass), and clear decision criteria for choosing output modes. The output format templates are copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: the test gate requires write → run → verify failure → implement → run → verify pass. The process has 10 numbered steps with clear decision points (phased vs detailed, pause vs one-shot). The HARD-GATE section enforces strict ordering constraints. Post-implementation gates (YARD, docs, code review) are explicit. Step 10 includes a verification step after saving. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single monolithic file with substantial inline content that could benefit from splitting — the detailed output templates, the Rails-first slice heuristics table, and the integration table could be separate reference files. The Integration table references many other skills but the main content itself is all inline. However, the Quick Reference table at the top provides a good overview. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- igmarin/rails-agent-skills
- Commit
ae8ea63
- 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.