write-in-informational-style

Rewrite text in a dense, factual informational style with no fluff or marketing. Use when the user asks to write or rewrite docs or notes concisely or to apply a neutral informational tone.

Quality

62%

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-in-informational-style/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

46%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 content gives concrete, example-driven guidance but is weighed down by ALL-CAPS verbosity, redundant overlapping sections, a malformed primary example, and a mismatch between the informational-style title and the summarize-focused body. Tightening and de-duplicating would materially raise quality.

Suggestions

Resolve the title/body mismatch: the description promises an informational-style rewrite but the body repeatedly instructs summarization — pick one purpose and align the heading, chain-of-thought, and examples to it.

Fix the malformed EXAMPLE block (empty ``` fences at lines 64-65 and the stray ---) so the canonical before/after demonstration renders correctly and unambiguously.

Collapse the redundant CHAIN OF THOUGHT, TASK EXECUTION INSTRUCTIONS, and WHAT NOT TO DO sections into a single concise workflow, and drop the ALL-CAPS shouting and padded finale to improve token efficiency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	ALL-CAPS restatement, redundant sections (CHAIN OF THOUGHT overlaps TASK EXECUTION INSTRUCTIONS and WHAT NOT TO DO), and a padded finale ("MAKE EVERY WORD COUNT. WRITE LIKE YOU SPEAK—") make it noticeably verbose with several padded passages.	2 / 5
Actionability	Concrete do/don't guidance and bad/good word swaps ("Utilize"→"Use") plus few-shot examples provide real direction, but the primary EXAMPLE block is malformed with empty code fences and a stray "---", leaving a key detail broken.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A 7-step chain-of-thought sequence exists, but it competes with parallel TASK EXECUTION INSTRUCTIONS and WHAT NOT TO DO sections, making the actual execution sequence ambiguous despite being a simple non-destructive task.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is self-contained with clear section headers and no external references, which is well-organized for a single-purpose skill, though it runs over 50 lines with some content that could be tightened.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 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.

The description is strong: it clearly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with natural trigger phrases and a reasonably distinct niche. The only gap is that it lists a single concrete action rather than a comprehensive set.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Rewrite text in a dense, factual informational style" names the domain and one concrete action, but does not enumerate multiple distinct actions, matching the anchor for domain + 1-2 actions without comprehensive coverage.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly states both what ("Rewrite text in a dense, factual informational style with no fluff or marketing") and when ("Use when the user asks to write or rewrite docs or notes concisely or to apply a neutral informational tone") with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "write or rewrite docs or notes concisely" and "neutral informational tone" are natural things a user would say, though synonyms like "summarize" or "plain language" are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The dense, factual, no-fluff informational-tone niche is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against general writing or summarization skills.	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-in-informational-style/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.