CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

808-regulations-eu-digital-markets-act

Use when reviewing, designing, or modifying Java enterprise systems that may support EU Digital Markets Act gatekeeper-platform concerns, core platform services, interoperability, business-user data access, consent-dependent data combination, ranking, self-preferencing, advertising transparency, or anti-circumvention controls. This should trigger for requests such as Review a Java platform for DMA controls; Design interoperability and business-user data access evidence; Add ranking, consent, preference, or anti-circumvention audit controls; Assess gatekeeper-platform engineering evidence before production release. Part of Plinth Toolkit

64

Quality

77%

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/808-regulations-eu-digital-markets-act/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.

A well-organized, actionable instruction-only skill with a clear five-step workflow and properly separated one-level-deep reference files. The principal weakness is repetition (references listed three times) and verbose constraint phrasing that inflates token cost without adding clarity.

Suggestions

List the three reference/template files in only one place (e.g. the Reference section) and link from the workflow rather than re-stating full paths in the intro, workflow step 1, and Reference section.

Tighten the Constraints bullet list by trimming repeated qualifier phrases (e.g. repeatedly enumerating every owner role) so each constraint is one concise line.

Add an explicit validate-then-fix feedback loop in the workflow (e.g. verify reported evidence against claimed controls before generating the final report) to strengthen the checkpoint between steps 3 and 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient domain framing rather than teaching known concepts, but the three reference files are listed in three separate places (intro, workflow step 1, and the Reference section) and the Constraints section uses verbose, repetitive bulleted phrasing that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only review skill it gives concrete, specific guidance: exact artifacts to inspect (Java code, DTOs, repositories, schemas, migrations, Kafka messages, feature flags, audit logs), explicit control mappings, and a named report template to produce, with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced (read references → classify scope → review evidence → recommend controls → generate report) with a gap-check checkpoint in step 3 and validation steps named in the report output; because this is an assessment rather than a destructive or batch operation, the validation cap does not apply, though an explicit validate-fix-retry loop is absent.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good with a clear overview, Scope, Constraints, When-to-use, Workflow, and Reference sections, and all three bundle files (chapters summary, engineering examples, report template) are real, well-signaled, and one level deep; the main gap is the fairly long inline Constraints bullet list that could arguably live in a reference file.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 strong, well-structured description that clearly states both capability and trigger conditions with concrete example requests and a distinct regulatory niche. The only weakness is that the core action verbs are somewhat generic relative to the richly specific domain enumeration.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names concrete actions ("reviewing, designing, or modifying") plus a comprehensive enumeration of DMA concern areas (interoperability, business-user data access, consent-dependent data combination, ranking, self-preferencing, advertising transparency, anti-circumvention), but the action verbs themselves are somewhat high-level rather than fully concrete, so it sits just below the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what the skill does (review/design/modify Java enterprise systems for DMA gatekeeper-platform concerns) and when to use it ("Use when..." plus "This should trigger for requests such as..." with concrete trigger phrases), matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It opens with "Use when reviewing, designing, or modifying Java enterprise systems" and follows with natural request phrases ("Review a Java platform for DMA controls", "Add ranking, consent, preference, or anti-circumvention audit controls"), giving good keyword coverage with only minor synonyms missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is highly specific (EU DMA gatekeeper-platform controls for Java enterprise systems), with distinct triggers and minimal realistic overlap with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 3 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
jabrena/plinth
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.