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.
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/18-visual-content/technical-diagram-analyzer/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 title and category label with no substantive content. It lacks concrete actions, natural trigger terms, explicit usage guidance, and any distinguishing detail that would help Claude select it appropriately from a pool of skills.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Interprets flowcharts, UML diagrams, architecture diagrams, and schematics to extract structure, relationships, and annotations.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user shares or asks about technical diagrams, flowcharts, UML, network topologies, circuit schematics, or architecture visuals.'
Remove the duplicated trigger term and replace with diverse, natural keywords users would actually say, such as 'diagram', 'flowchart', 'schematic', 'UML', 'architecture diagram', 'system diagram'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a domain ('Technical Diagram Analyzer') but provides no concrete actions. There is no mention of what it actually does—no verbs like 'extract', 'interpret', 'annotate', or 'convert'. 'Auto-activating skill for Visual Content' is vague filler. | 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 mechanical metadata, not a meaningful usage guide. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only trigger terms listed are 'technical diagram analyzer' repeated twice, which is not a phrase users would naturally say. Missing natural terms like 'flowchart', 'architecture diagram', 'UML', 'schematic', 'diagram analysis', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Visual Content' is extremely broad and could overlap with image analysis, chart reading, screenshot interpretation, and many other visual skills. Nothing in the description carves out a clear niche for technical diagrams specifically. | 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/placeholder with no actual instructional content. It repeatedly references 'technical diagram analyzer' without ever defining what that means, what tools to use (e.g., Mermaid, PlantUML, D2), or how to accomplish any task. It provides zero value to Claude as a skill file.
Suggestions
Replace the entire body with actual technical content: include concrete examples of diagram creation using specific tools (e.g., Mermaid syntax for flowcharts, sequence diagrams, class diagrams) with executable code blocks.
Add a clear workflow for analyzing or creating technical diagrams, such as: 1) Identify diagram type needed, 2) Generate diagram code in Mermaid/PlantUML, 3) Validate syntax, 4) Render or output.
Remove all meta-description sections ('When to Use', 'Example Triggers', 'Capabilities') that describe the skill abstractly and replace them with actionable reference material like syntax cheat sheets and common patterns.
Add concrete examples showing input (e.g., a system architecture description) and expected output (e.g., complete Mermaid diagram code) so Claude knows exactly what to produce.
| 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 technical content. Every section restates the same vague idea ('technical diagram analyzer') without adding substance. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete guidance—no code, no commands, no examples of diagram syntax, no tool references, no specific techniques. The 'capabilities' section lists abstract promises ('step-by-step guidance', 'production-ready code') but delivers none of them. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow, steps, or process is described at all. The skill claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but contains no steps whatsoever. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | There is no meaningful content to organize, no references to external files, and no layered structure. The sections are purely boilerplate headers with no substantive content beneath them. | 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.