technical-diagram-analyzer
Technical Diagram Analyzer - Auto-activating skill for Visual Content. Triggers on: technical diagram analyzer, technical diagram analyzer Part of the Visual Content skill category.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills --skill technical-diagram-analyzer36
Quality
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.01xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/18-visual-content/technical-diagram-analyzer/SKILL.mdDiscovery
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 severely underdeveloped, functioning more as a category label than a useful skill description. It lacks any concrete actions, meaningful trigger terms, or guidance on when to use it. The redundant trigger terms and absence of capability details would make it nearly impossible for Claude to reliably select this skill from a larger skill set.
Suggestions
Add specific actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Analyzes technical diagrams to identify components, relationships, data flows, and architectural patterns'
Include natural trigger terms users would say: 'flowchart', 'UML diagram', 'architecture diagram', 'system diagram', 'explain this diagram', 'what does this show'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause: 'Use when the user shares a technical diagram image and asks for explanation, analysis, or documentation of the visual content'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description only states 'Technical Diagram Analyzer' without describing any concrete actions. There are no verbs indicating what the skill actually does (e.g., 'extracts components', 'identifies relationships', 'explains architecture'). | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. It only provides a category label ('Visual Content') without explaining capabilities or explicit usage triggers. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms are redundant ('technical diagram analyzer' repeated twice) and unlikely to match natural user language. Users would more likely say 'analyze this diagram', 'explain this flowchart', or 'what does this architecture show'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While 'technical diagram' provides some specificity within visual content, the lack of detail about what types of diagrams (flowcharts, UML, architecture, circuit diagrams) or what analysis is performed creates potential overlap with other visual analysis 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 template with no actual content. It contains only generic placeholder text that describes what a skill should do without providing any concrete guidance, examples, or actionable instructions for analyzing technical diagrams. The entire content could be replaced with actual implementation details.
Suggestions
Add concrete examples of technical diagram analysis, such as how to interpret flowcharts, sequence diagrams, or architecture diagrams with specific visual patterns to look for
Include executable code or specific commands for diagram processing tools (e.g., extracting information from Mermaid diagrams, parsing SVG elements)
Define a clear workflow for diagram analysis: identify diagram type → extract key elements → interpret relationships → summarize findings
Replace generic capability claims with actual techniques, such as 'Look for directional arrows to determine data flow' or 'Identify swimlanes to understand responsibility boundaries'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is padded with generic boilerplate that provides no actual value. Phrases like 'provides automated assistance' and 'follows industry best practices' are vague filler that Claude doesn't need. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance, no code examples, no specific commands, and no actual instructions on how to analyze technical diagrams. The content only describes what the skill claims to do without showing how. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined. The skill mentions 'step-by-step guidance' but provides none. There are no sequences, validation steps, or any actual process to follow. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic block of placeholder text with no references to detailed materials, no links to examples or advanced documentation, and no meaningful structure beyond generic 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 | |
- 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.