CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

capabilities

Show what this NanoClaw instance can do — installed skills, available tools, and system info. Read-only. Use when the user asks what the bot can do, what's installed, or runs /capabilities.

73

Quality

92%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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.

Highly actionable content: every step is an executable command, the gating main-channel check handles both branches explicitly, and the report format is fully specified. The main weakness is token efficiency — the tool inventory is stated three times across sections 2, 3, and the report example — which also inflates the body beyond an ideal single-file length.

Suggestions

Consolidate the tool inventory: state the full tool list once (merging 'Available tools' and 'MCP server tools' into one section) and have the report-format example reference it or show abbreviated output rather than repeating the full list a third time.

Trim explanatory asides like 'The directory name is the skill name (e.g., agent-browser → /agent-browser)' — the ls output makes this self-evident to Claude.

State the report example placeholders more compactly (e.g., 'Tools: [from section 2]') so the format template doesn't duplicate content the model already gathered.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Concrete commands throughout with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but there is duplication: the tool list appears in '### 2. Available tools', again in '### 3. MCP server tools', and a third time in the report-format example; the aside 'The directory name is the skill name (e.g., agent-browser → /agent-browser)' could be trimmed. Not a 5: these repeated tool listings cost tokens without adding instruction value.

4 / 5

Actionability

Every gathering step is a copy-paste-ready command with fallback echoes (test -d ..., ls -1 ... || echo, which ... || echo), the main-channel check has exact output handling for both branches, and a complete report-format example is provided. Matches the fully-executable anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sequence is unambiguous: main-channel validation gate first (with an explicit stop instruction on the NOT_MAIN branch), then five concrete gathering commands, then compile into the given format, then 'Adapt the output based on what you actually find'. The operation is read-only, so no destructive/batch feedback loop is required, and the single explicit checkpoint is fully specified.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single-file structure is well-sectioned with headers, a worked report example, and a clearly signaled 'See also: /status' pointer — nothing here clearly belongs in a separate file. Not a 5: at ~95 lines the body exceeds the lean single-file ideal, largely due to the duplicated tool listings that could be consolidated into one authoritative section.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 description: third-person, concrete about what the report contains, read-only scope stated, and an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases including the command name. Only gap is a few natural synonym phrasings users might use.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete deliverables — "installed skills, available tools, and system info" — plus the "Read-only" qualifier, giving comprehensive coverage of the report's actual contents (skills, tools, MCP tools, container tools, system all map to these three categories). Not a 4: no real coverage gaps for this skill's scope.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Show what this NanoClaw instance can do — installed skills, available tools, and system info. Read-only.") and when ("Use when the user asks what the bot can do, what's installed, or runs /capabilities"), with concrete trigger phrases. Matches the anchor-5 example pattern exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases present: "what the bot can do", "what's installed", and the explicit command "/capabilities". Not a 5: common variations a user would actually say — e.g. "what can you do", "list your skills", "what tools do you have" — are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to "this NanoClaw instance" and tied to a named command (/capabilities), giving a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with other skills. Third-person voice is used correctly.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
jbaruch/nanoclaw-telegram
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.