readme-generator
Readme Generator - Auto-activating skill for Technical Documentation. Triggers on: readme generator, readme generator Part of the Technical Documentation skill category.
36
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
98%
1.02xAverage 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/readme-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 is a very weak skill description that reads like auto-generated boilerplate rather than a thoughtfully crafted selection guide. It lacks concrete actions, meaningful trigger terms, and any explicit 'use when' guidance. The duplicate trigger term suggests minimal effort was put into defining when this skill should activate.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Generates README.md files from project structure, including installation instructions, usage examples, API documentation, badges, and contributing guidelines.'
Add a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to create a README, generate project documentation, write a README.md, or set up a new repository's documentation.'
Include varied natural keywords users might say: 'README', 'readme file', 'README.md', 'project docs', 'repo documentation', 'create a readme', 'write documentation'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only says 'Readme Generator' and 'Technical Documentation' without listing any concrete actions like 'generate README files from project structure, create badges, add installation instructions'. It is extremely vague about what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description barely answers 'what does this do' (generates readmes, implied) and has no meaningful 'when should Claude use it' clause. The 'Triggers on' line is just the skill name repeated, not genuine usage guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms listed are just 'readme generator' repeated twice. It misses natural variations users would say like 'README', 'readme file', 'create a readme', 'project documentation', 'README.md', or 'generate documentation'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The term 'readme generator' is somewhat specific to a niche (generating README files), which provides some distinctiveness. However, the broad 'Technical Documentation' category label could overlap with other documentation 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 placeholder with no substantive content. It contains only generic boilerplate descriptions that repeat the phrase 'readme generator' without providing any actual instructions, templates, examples, or actionable guidance for generating READMEs. It fails on every dimension of the rubric.
Suggestions
Add a concrete README template with sections (Title, Description, Installation, Usage, API Reference, Contributing, License) that Claude can populate based on project analysis.
Include executable examples showing how to inspect a project's structure (e.g., scanning for package.json, setup.py, Cargo.toml) and generate appropriate README content from it.
Define a clear workflow: 1) Analyze project structure, 2) Identify key components, 3) Generate draft README, 4) Validate completeness against a checklist of required sections.
Remove all boilerplate meta-descriptions ('This skill provides automated assistance...') and replace with actionable content that teaches Claude something it doesn't already know about README generation best practices.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is entirely filler and boilerplate. It explains nothing Claude doesn't already know, contains no domain-specific information, and every section restates the same vague concept ('readme generator') without adding value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance—no code, no commands, no templates, no examples of actual README structure or content. Every bullet point is abstract and vague ('Provides step-by-step guidance' without actually providing any). | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow, steps, or process is defined at all. The skill claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but contains no steps whatsoever. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No references to external files, no structured navigation, and no bundle files exist. The content is a monolithic block of placeholder text with no meaningful organization of information. | 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
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.