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".
82
80%
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 description that clearly defines a specific niche (messaging consistency validation across multiple sources) with explicit trigger guidance. It excels in completeness and distinctiveness, with good natural trigger terms. The only minor weakness is that the specific actions could be slightly more detailed (e.g., what kinds of discrepancies it detects).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (messaging consistency) and mentions specific sources (website, GitHub repos, local documentation) and output type (read-only discrepancy reports), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond 'validate' and 'generate reports'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (validate messaging consistency across website, GitHub repos, and local docs, generating discrepancy reports) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause and 'Trigger with' phrases). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'check consistency', 'validate documentation', 'audit messaging', 'content alignment', 'mixed messaging'. These are phrases users would naturally say when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche — cross-source messaging consistency validation with read-only discrepancy reports is very specific and unlikely to conflict with general documentation or content skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
70%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 clear workflow sequencing, good error handling, and appropriate progressive disclosure to reference files. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (the Examples and Output sections add redundancy) and the gap between the conceptual comparison logic and the simple grep/diff commands provided, which wouldn't fully handle real cross-source consistency validation at scale.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly trim the 'Examples' section — Claude can infer use cases from the skill description and instructions; these scenarios consume tokens without adding actionable guidance.
Consolidate the 'Output' section into the 'Report Format' section since they describe the same thing, or reduce 'Output' to a single line referencing the report format above.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes some unnecessary sections like the 'Examples' block with three use-case scenarios that explain when to use the skill (Claude can infer this), and the 'Output' section largely repeats what's already shown in the Report Format section. The Overview also restates the description. However, the core instructions are reasonably tight. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions include concrete bash commands for discovery and extraction (grep, find, diff), and the report format is well-specified with a copy-paste-ready template. However, the core comparison logic (steps 4-6) relies on simple grep/diff which wouldn't realistically handle structured cross-source comparison — the actual 'build comparison matrix' step is more conceptual than executable for complex scenarios. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 8-step workflow is clearly sequenced with a verification checkpoint at step 3 ('confirm at least 3 data points per source') and an explicit error handling fallback. The severity classification system provides clear decision criteria, and the trust priority hierarchy resolves ambiguity. The error handling table adds recovery paths for common failure modes. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is well-structured with clear sections (Overview, Instructions, Report Format, Error Handling) and references three external files for deeper content (how-it-works.md, best-practices.md, example-use-cases.md) — all one level deep and clearly signaled with descriptive labels. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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
c8a915c
- 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.