code-of-conduct-generator
Code Of Conduct Generator - Auto-activating skill for Technical Documentation. Triggers on: code of conduct generator, code of conduct generator Part of the Technical Documentation skill category.
84
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.00xAverage score across 9 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/17-technical-docs/code-of-conduct-generator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%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 description is extremely thin—it essentially restates the skill name and category without describing concrete capabilities or providing explicit trigger guidance. It lacks actionable detail that would help Claude distinguish this skill from other documentation-related skills in a large skill library.
Suggestions
Add specific actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Generates CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md files with customizable sections for standards, enforcement, and scope.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a code of conduct, community guidelines, contributor behavior policy, or CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md.'
Remove the duplicate trigger term and expand with natural variations users might say, such as 'community standards', 'contributor covenant', 'project rules', or 'open source conduct policy'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only names the skill ('Code Of Conduct Generator') and its category ('Technical Documentation') but does not describe any concrete actions like 'generates community guidelines', 'creates contributor behavior policies', or 'customizes enforcement sections'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description barely addresses 'what' (generates a code of conduct, implied only by the name) and has no explicit 'when' clause. There is no 'Use when...' guidance, which per the rubric should cap completeness at 2 at best, but even the 'what' is too weak to merit a 2. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only trigger terms listed are 'code of conduct generator' repeated twice. It misses natural variations users would say like 'community guidelines', 'contributor covenant', 'behavior policy', 'CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md', or 'project conduct rules'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'code of conduct' is fairly specific and unlikely to conflict with most other skills, but the generic 'Technical Documentation' category label and lack of detail could cause overlap with other documentation generation skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is an empty shell with no substantive content. It consists entirely of boilerplate meta-descriptions about what the skill could do, without providing any actual instructions, code examples, templates, or actionable guidance for generating a code of conduct. It fails on every dimension of the rubric.
Suggestions
Add a concrete code of conduct template (e.g., a complete Markdown document based on Contributor Covenant or similar) that Claude can customize for a project.
Provide a clear step-by-step workflow: gather project info → select template → customize sections → output final document, with specific instructions at each step.
Include at least one executable example showing input (project name, community type) and expected output (complete code of conduct Markdown).
Remove all meta-description sections ('Purpose', 'When to Use', 'Example Triggers') that describe the skill abstractly and replace them with actual actionable content.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and meta-description. It explains what the skill does in abstract terms without providing any actual instructions, code, or actionable content. Every section restates the same vague idea. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance—no code, no commands, no templates, no examples of actual code of conduct content or generation steps. It only describes what it could do without doing anything. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined. There are no steps, no sequence, no validation checkpoints. The 'Capabilities' section lists abstract promises ('step-by-step guidance') but provides none. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a flat, monolithic block of meta-descriptions with no references to detailed files, no structured navigation, and no meaningful content organization beyond boilerplate headings. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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
b8a3b3e
- 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.