write-dep

Write a Development Enhancement Proposal (DEP) for a technical improvement. Use when the user wants to propose, document, or formalize a technical change for review.

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/flowai-engineering/skills/write-dep/SKILL.md

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 well-organized, actionable DEP-writing skill with a clear sequenced workflow, copy-paste templates, and an end verification checklist. Its main weaknesses are mild verbosity in the context/examples sections and implicit rather than inline validation checkpoints between workflow steps.

Suggestions

Trim the <context> block's PRD/RFC/ADR distinctions and condense the good/bad example pairs to reduce over-explanation Claude already knows.

Add inline validation checkpoints between the step-by-step phases (e.g., after 'Formulate the Problem' confirm metrics exist before proceeding) to make the feedback loop explicit.

Consider moving the full section-by-section template and worked examples into a referenced file (e.g., references/dep-template.md) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview with one-level-deep references.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and well-structured with templates and tables, but the <context> block (e.g., contrasting DEP with PRD/RFC/ADR) and verbose good/bad example pairs include explanation Claude largely already knows and could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete copy-paste-ready markdown templates (metadata table, alternatives/risk/metrics tables) and specific step-by-step instructions give mostly executable guidance; minor gaps remain where sections stay abstract ("Diagrams (if applicable)") and no full worked DEP example is shown.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 7-step sequence ending in an explicit "Persist to disk" mandate plus a final verification checklist provides most checkpoints, but inline validation/feedback loops between steps are implicit rather than explicit.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist, so this scores against the self-contained body: clear header/XML-tag structure (SYSTEM ROLE, OBJECTIVE, CONTEXT, DEP STRUCTURE, RULES, INSTRUCTIONS, EXAMPLES, VERIFICATION) with one-level navigation and no nested references, though the monolithic template-and-examples content could arguably split into reference files.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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.

A solid, third-person description that explicitly pairs a clear "what" with concrete "when" triggers. It is slightly held back by moderate specificity and trigger synonym coverage, and broad trigger language that risks overlap with adjacent proposal-style skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ("Development Enhancement Proposal (DEP)") and a concrete action ("Write"), plus secondary verbs ("propose, document, or formalize"), but coverage is not comprehensive—matching the anchor that lists 1-2 concrete actions rather than several.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both "what" ("Write a Development Enhancement Proposal (DEP) for a technical improvement") and "when" with concrete trigger phrases in the "Use when..." clause, matching the anchor for clearly explicit what-and-when.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"Use when the user wants to propose, document, or formalize a technical change for review" provides good natural trigger coverage, though it lacks common synonyms (RFC, proposal, spec) users might also say, keeping it just below comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The DEP niche is clearly distinct, but the trigger phrasing ("propose, document, or formalize a technical change") is broad enough to risk minor overlap with related RFC/ADR/PRD-style skills, so it does not reach minimal-conflict territory.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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: korchasa/flowai-plugins
Path: plugins/flowai-engineering/skills/write-dep/SKILL.md
Commit: b4ba256

Reviewed: ~21 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.