CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

recon-workbench

Run, audit, and design authorized Recon Workbench workflows when scoped target interrogation needs evidence artifacts, redaction, validation, and safe reporting.

57

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./Skills/security-ops/recon-workbench/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%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.

The skill is well-structured and token-efficient with good progressive disclosure, but its workflow and actionability suffer from bullet-form steps and a lack of executable command syntax for the rwb subcommands it names.

Suggestions

Provide concrete executable examples for the key rwb subcommands (e.g., the exact `rwb doctor` / `rwb run` invocation with expected arguments) to lift actionability.

Reformat the Workflow as a numbered sequence with inline validation checkpoints (confirm auth -> read-only probes -> validate -> escalate only if justified -> redact) so the validate-fix-retry loop is explicit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean, bullet-driven, and assumes Claude's competence without explaining known concepts; a few placeholder bullets ("Outputs section", "Procedure section") carry low information but are not verbose, keeping it just shy of a 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

It names concrete rwb subcommands (doctor, authorize, plan, run, summarize, manifest, validate, reconcile) but gives no executable command syntax or copy-paste examples, leaving guidance incomplete.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section lists a sensible sequence as bullets and a separate Validation/Failure-Mode section adds fail-fast checkpoints, but the main workflow lacks inline numbered steps and explicit validate-fix-retry checkpoints, fitting the 3 anchor.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A dedicated Progressive Disclosure section signals one-level-deep references to real bundle files (references/contract.yaml, evals.yaml, task-profile.json) plus deferred context, with only minor organization gaps from external Infrastructure paths.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

71%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 clearly answers what and when with several concrete actions and a distinct niche, but its trigger phrasing leans technical rather than natural, weakening how readily a user would invoke it.

Suggestions

Rewrite the when-clause using natural user phrasing (e.g., "Use when the user asks to run, audit, or design a Recon Workbench workflow against an authorized target") to improve trigger term quality.

Add common synonyms or surface names users actually say (e.g., "recon", "probe plan", "manifest validation") alongside the technical terms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several concrete actions ("Run, audit, and design") plus supporting activities ("evidence artifacts, redaction, validation, and safe reporting"), with only minor gaps in coverage; not quite the comprehensive multi-action list of a 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

It states both what ("Run, audit, and design authorized Recon Workbench workflows") and when ("when scoped target interrogation needs evidence artifacts..."), but the when-clause could be more explicit and natural rather than abstract.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords appear ("Recon Workbench", "target interrogation", "redaction", "validation") but phrasing is jargon-heavy ("scoped target interrogation needs evidence artifacts") and misses the natural terms a user would actually say.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Tied to the named "Recon Workbench" niche with distinct triggers, giving a clear specialty with minimal overlap risk against generic skills.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
jscraik/Agent-Skills
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.