definition-of-done-generator
Definition Of Done Generator - Auto-activating skill for Enterprise Workflows. Triggers on: definition of done generator, definition of done generator Part of the Enterprise Workflows skill category.
36
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
99%
1.01xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/20-enterprise-workflows/definition-of-done-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 weak, essentially just restating the skill name without providing any meaningful information about what the skill does or when it should be used. The trigger terms are duplicated and lack natural language variations. The description reads more like auto-generated metadata than a useful skill description.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill generates, e.g., 'Generates Definition of Done checklists for user stories, epics, and sprints based on team standards and acceptance criteria.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about DoD, definition of done, acceptance criteria, done criteria, sprint completion standards, or agile quality gates.'
Remove the duplicate trigger term and expand with natural variations users would actually say, such as 'DoD', 'done checklist', 'acceptance criteria template', 'story completion criteria'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only names the skill ('Definition Of Done Generator') but does not describe any concrete actions. There are no specific capabilities listed such as what it generates, what inputs it takes, or what outputs it produces. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. It mentions auto-activating and a category but provides no meaningful explanation of functionality or explicit trigger guidance beyond repeating the skill name. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are just the skill name repeated twice ('definition of done generator, definition of done generator'), which is redundant and lacks natural variations users might say such as 'DoD', 'acceptance criteria', 'done criteria', 'user story completion', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'Definition of Done' is fairly specific to agile/scrum methodology, which gives it some distinctiveness. However, the vague 'Enterprise Workflows' category and lack of concrete actions could cause overlap with other agile or project management 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 essentially a placeholder or template with no substantive content. It repeatedly references 'definition of done generator' without ever defining what a Definition of Done is, how to generate one, or providing any concrete examples, templates, or executable guidance. It fails on every dimension of the rubric.
Suggestions
Add a concrete Definition of Done template with specific, actionable criteria (e.g., code review completed, tests passing, documentation updated) that Claude can customize per project context.
Include at least one worked example showing input (e.g., a user story or feature description) and the expected output (a complete Definition of Done checklist).
Define a clear workflow: gather requirements → generate DoD → validate against standards → iterate, with explicit validation checkpoints.
Remove all meta-description sections ('When to Use', 'Example Triggers', 'Capabilities') that describe the skill abstractly and replace them with actual instructional 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 concrete guidance. Every section restates the same vague concept. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero actionable content—no code, no commands, no concrete steps, no examples of inputs/outputs. The 'Capabilities' section lists abstract promises ('provides step-by-step guidance') without delivering any actual guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined at all. There are no steps, no sequence, no validation checkpoints. The skill claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but contains none. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a flat, monolithic block of vague descriptions with no references to detailed materials, no links to supporting files, and no meaningful structural 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
4dee593
- 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.