CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

onboard

Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions, or quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz.

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./epistemic-cooperative/skills/onboard/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A densely operational, highly actionable workflow document: every phase has concrete gates, branch logic, and fallbacks, and the two reference files are real and well-signaled. Its weaknesses are redundancy (protocol distinctions restated verbatim across sections and rules repeating phase text) and the inlined 13-protocol catalog that inflates the body at the cost of navigability.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the /inquire-vs-/apportion (and other distractor-pair) distinctions — they are spelled out at length in the Data Sources rows, the Phase 5 feedback example, and the Quiz Design section; state each once and reference it.

Move the 13-protocol Data Sources catalog to a reference file (e.g., references/protocols.md) and keep a compact name + one-line trigger table in SKILL.md, tightening the 100+ word rows.

Trim Rules 2, 9, and 10, which restate mechanics already specified in Phase 2a, Phase 1, and the fallback tiers, and resolve the Phase 2a/2b/2 numbering collision (e.g., rename to Phase 2 Pick/Evidence and Phase 3 Map with downstream phases renumbered or lettered).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence (e.g., "Resolve it ONCE per invocation with Bash `printf '%s\n' "${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR-$HOME/.claude}"`" and the byte-bounded "read only the first 256 KB of each record") with no known-concept padding, but the /inquire-vs-/apportion distinction is written out at full length three times (Data Sources rows, the Phase 5 feedback example, and Quiz Design), and Rules 2/9/10 restate phase text. Anchor 3 ("mostly efficient … could be tightened"), not 2, since most tokens carry unique operational instruction rather than explanation.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: exact gate option text, explicit branch handling ("If no signals detected … recommend `/elicit`"), pool-exhaustion transitions, and precise record-selection rules ("Glob `{config_dir}/projects/*/*.jsonl` … Exclude partitions whose name contains `-worktrees-`"). Anchor 4 rather than 5 because sample renderings — e.g., what an evidence card or a one-sentence recommendation actually looks like — are described by rules but never shown.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0–6 are clearly sequenced with per-path preconditions ("Quick path only", "Targeted path only"), an explicit skip rule ("targeted + standard → skip Phases 1-2, jump to Phase 3"), named state variables, a gate-call budget table, and fallbacks at every failure point (no records, unparseable lines, pool exhaustion). Anchor 4 rather than 5 because the section numbering collides — "Phase 2a: Pick", "Phase 2b: Evidence", and "Phase 2: Map" are three separate headers sharing the number 2 — which mildly obscures navigation.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Both referenced bundle files (`references/scenarios.md`, `references/advanced-usage.md`) exist and are cited at their point of use, one level deep and clearly signaled ("Use the **Trial prompt** field from `references/scenarios.md`"). Anchor 4 rather than 5 because the 13-protocol Data Sources catalog — including single table rows exceeding 100 words (e.g., the Merismos `/apportion` row) — is inlined in SKILL.md where it is natural reference material that belongs in a separate file.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is concise and third-person, naming two genuine capabilities, but it omits any "when to use" trigger guidance and lacks the natural vocabulary (onboarding, getting started, protocol discovery) users would employ. It reads as an incomplete capability statement rather than a trigger-equipped description.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when…' clause with concrete triggers, e.g. "Use when the user wants onboarding, is getting started with epistemic protocols, or asks which protocol fits their workflow."

Include natural trigger phrases users would actually say — "onboarding", "get started", "which protocol should I use", "recommend a protocol" — in place of jargon like "quest-based learning".

State what the recommendation is grounded in and what the user gets (e.g., "recommends a protocol based on signals in the user's recent sessions, with an evidence card and a live trial").

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions" and "quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz" name the domain and two concrete actions, but coverage stops there — what the recommendation is based on or produces is not stated. This matches anchor 3 ("names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive"), not 4, which requires several specific actions with only minor gaps.

3 / 5

Completeness

A "what" is present (recommendation plus guided learning via scenario/trial/quiz) but no "when" — there is no "Use when…" clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3. It is not 4 because the "when" is not merely implicit-weak but entirely absent.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"protocol recommendation", "learning", "scenario, trial, and quiz" are reasonably natural, but the common user phrasings for this skill — "onboarding", "getting started", "which protocol should I use" — are absent, and "quest-based learning" is jargon users would not say. Anchor 3 ("some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms"), not 2, since multiple relevant keywords are present rather than one or two generic ones.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions" carves a niche (onboarding to a protocol suite) but "quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz" could plausibly overlap with any tutorial or learning skill, and no concrete trigger phrases disambiguate it. Anchor 3 ("somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills"), not 4, because the overlap risk extends beyond closely related skills.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

jongwony/epistemic-protocols

Path

epistemic-cooperative/skills/onboard/SKILL.md

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.