000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator
Validate messaging consistency across website, GitHub repos, and local documentation generating read-only discrepancy reports. Use when checking content alignment or finding mixed messaging. Trigger with phrases like "check consistency", "validate documentation", or "audit messaging".
79
76%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/productivity/000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator/skills/000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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 is a well-crafted skill description that clearly communicates its purpose, includes explicit trigger guidance, and occupies a distinct niche. Its main weakness is that the specificity of concrete actions could be slightly more detailed—listing specific sub-capabilities like comparing headings, checking version numbers, or identifying terminology mismatches would strengthen it further.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (messaging consistency across website, GitHub repos, local documentation) and the core action (validate/generate discrepancy reports), but doesn't list multiple concrete sub-actions beyond 'validate' and 'generate reports'. It's more specific than vague but not as granular as listing 3+ distinct operations. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (validate messaging consistency across website, GitHub repos, and local docs, generating read-only discrepancy reports) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with trigger phrases). Both dimensions are well-covered. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'check consistency', 'validate documentation', 'audit messaging', plus contextual terms like 'content alignment', 'mixed messaging', 'discrepancy reports'. These are phrases users would naturally say when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche: cross-platform messaging consistency validation with read-only discrepancy reports. The combination of website + GitHub + local docs consistency checking is unlikely to conflict with other skills. The 'read-only' qualifier further narrows scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%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 skill with a clear multi-step workflow, good severity classification, and a concrete report template. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (redundant output description, use-case examples Claude doesn't need) and actionability gaps where the bash commands are illustrative but insufficient for the full cross-source comparison task. The referenced bundle files don't exist, limiting the progressive disclosure score.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly trim the 'Examples' section (use cases) and the 'Output' section, which largely duplicates the Report Format — Claude can infer use cases from the description and instructions.
Provide a more complete executable approach for the comparison matrix step (step 4) — the simple diff/grep commands won't handle structured multi-field comparison across sources; consider a script or more detailed algorithmic guidance.
Create the referenced bundle files (how-it-works.md, best-practices.md, example-use-cases.md) or remove the references to avoid dead links.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes some unnecessary sections like the 'Examples' block (pre-release audit, post-rebrand check, onboarding review) which describe use cases Claude can infer, and the 'Output' section largely repeats the report format section. The error handling table and core instructions are reasonably efficient, but overall could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete bash commands for discovery and extraction (grep, find, diff), and a clear report template. However, the core comparison logic is underspecified — the skill relies on simple grep/diff which won't handle structured cross-source comparison well, and there's no executable script or complete workflow for actually building the comparison matrix programmatically. The commands are illustrative rather than truly copy-paste complete for the full task. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit verification checkpoint at step 3 ('confirm at least 3 data points per source'), error handling guidance, severity classification criteria, and a trust priority hierarchy. The error handling table provides a feedback loop for common failure modes. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to external files (how-it-works.md, best-practices.md, example-use-cases.md) are well-signaled and one level deep, but no bundle files were provided, so these references are unverifiable. The main SKILL.md itself contains some content that could be offloaded (the detailed examples section, the full error handling table) to keep the overview leaner. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
3a2d27d
- 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.