faq-generator
Faq Generator - Auto-activating skill for Technical Documentation. Triggers on: faq generator, faq generator Part of the Technical Documentation skill category.
34
0%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.01xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/17-technical-docs/faq-generator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%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 essentially a placeholder with no substantive content. It names the skill and its category but provides zero information about specific capabilities, use cases, or meaningful trigger terms. The trigger terms are just the skill name duplicated, offering no value for skill selection.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Generates FAQ sections from technical documentation, extracts common questions from user feedback, and formats Q&A pairs in structured markdown.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'frequently asked questions', 'FAQ section', 'Q&A', 'common questions', 'help page', 'knowledge base', or 'support documentation'.
Remove the duplicated trigger term and replace with diverse, natural keywords users would actually say when needing FAQ generation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only names the skill ('Faq Generator') and its category ('Technical Documentation') but provides no concrete actions like 'generates FAQ sections from documentation' or 'extracts common questions from support tickets'. It is entirely vague about what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' beyond the name itself, and there is no 'when should Claude use it' clause. The 'Triggers on' line is just the skill name repeated, not meaningful trigger guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only trigger terms listed are 'faq generator' repeated twice. There are no natural variations a user might say such as 'frequently asked questions', 'FAQ section', 'Q&A', 'help page', 'knowledge base', or 'common questions'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is so generic that it could overlap with any documentation, content generation, or Q&A skill. 'Technical Documentation' as a category provides minimal differentiation, and there are no distinct triggers to separate it from other writing or documentation skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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 template with no substantive content. It repeatedly names 'faq generator' without ever defining what an FAQ generator does, how to create one, or providing any actionable instructions, code, or examples. Every section is generic boilerplate that could apply to any skill topic.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable examples showing how to generate FAQs from source material (e.g., a Python script or prompt template that extracts Q&A pairs from documentation).
Define a clear workflow: e.g., 1) Identify source content, 2) Extract key topics, 3) Generate question-answer pairs, 4) Validate coverage and accuracy, 5) Format output as markdown FAQ.
Remove all generic boilerplate ('This skill provides automated assistance...') and replace with specific, actionable instructions that teach Claude something it doesn't already know.
Include at least one complete input/output example showing source documentation transformed into a formatted FAQ section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and boilerplate. It explains nothing Claude doesn't already know, repeats 'faq generator' excessively, and provides zero substantive information about how to actually generate FAQs. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There are no concrete steps, code examples, commands, templates, or executable guidance of any kind. The skill describes what it supposedly does without ever showing how to do it. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined. There are no steps, no sequence, no validation checkpoints—just vague claims like 'provides step-by-step guidance' without actually providing any. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic block of generic placeholder text with no references to external files, no structured sections with real content, and no navigation to deeper resources. | 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.