CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

presentation

Turn a tech-spec directory into an interactive, marketing-grade web presentation — built so engineers understand the design, the reader is convinced of the why, and the result is shareable in public. Use when someone wants a spec turned into a deck.

Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/presentation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%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.

An exceptionally concrete, well-gated workflow for a complex multi-repo skill: exact paths, commands, and validation loops leave little ambiguity about what to do. The costs are token redundancy from recap sections and a main file that carries detail which its own reference files should absorb.

Suggestions

Delete the standalone Rules and Verify sections (or reduce them to one-line pointers) since they restate Phase 4's write surface and Phase 5's verification almost verbatim.

Move the base-project scaffolding detail (shape detection, gallery identity token filling, workspace wiring) into reference/hosting.md, keeping only the decision points in Phase 3.

Inline one minimal worked example of a typed content array and its consuming section so the content-layer contract is executable without opening template/.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operational with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the standalone Rules, Verify, and Decisions sections substantially restate rules, validation, and gates already specified in Workflow Phases 2, 4, and 5 — more than the 'minor instances' of the level-4 anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete — exact file paths, copy-paste commands ("pnpm type-check", "node build.mjs --only=<slug>"), and substitution literals ("__SPEC_MD_GLOB__") — but the body contains no worked examples (e.g., a typed content array or a section component), deferring them to reference/ and template/ files, so it is not fully copy-paste ready on its own.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0-6 are clearly sequenced with two explicit approval gates, concrete validation commands in Phase 5, fix-and-revalidate feedback loops ("fix every error", "fix anything red"), and a quality-bar checklist — matching the top anchor with checkpoints and error-recovery loops throughout.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep, gathered in a dedicated Load First section with descriptive one-liners per file, and a repo registry is given explicit precedence. However, the ~300-line body inlines substantial detail (base-shape detection, gallery identity tokens, the component promotion protocol) that belongs in the referenced files, and none of the cited reference/, template/, or base/ files exist in the bundle to verify.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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.

A clear, well-structured description with an explicit use-when trigger and a concrete core action. Its main weaknesses are limited action enumeration (one verb rather than a list of capabilities) and a missing common synonym ("slides") that would sharpen triggering.

Suggestions

Enumerate 2-3 concrete capabilities (e.g., generating interactive slides, wiring the spec viewer, registering roadmap frontmatter) instead of a single verb with outcome clauses.

Add common trigger synonyms such as "slides" or "turn this RFC/spec into a presentation" to the use-when clause.

Lead with the action and trim the outcome rationale ("built so engineers understand...") to tighten the description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

One concrete action is named ("Turn a tech-spec directory into an interactive, marketing-grade web presentation") with outcome framing ("engineers understand the design, the reader is convinced of the why"), but it does not list several specific actions, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the 'lists several specific actions' level above.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the what ("Turn a tech-spec directory into an interactive, marketing-grade web presentation") and the when with a concrete trigger phrase ("Use when someone wants a spec turned into a deck"), matching the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms include "tech-spec", "spec", "presentation", and "deck" ("Use when someone wants a spec turned into a deck"), giving good keyword coverage, though common synonyms like "slides" or "slideshow" are missing — above the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor but not comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The spec-to-deck niche is clear with a distinct trigger ("a spec turned into a deck"), but the prominent word "presentation" creates minor overlap risk with generic slide/pptx presentation skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than minimal conflict.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

iii-hq/iii

Path

skills/presentation/SKILL.md

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.