CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

matter-plan-builder

Convert agreed scope into a structured matter plan — phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, and matter setup decisions. Use when planning a new matter, running a kickoff, building a workstream plan, structuring phases, setting up task codes, or producing a plan to drive status reporting. Trigger on: 'build a plan', 'matter plan', 'project plan', 'what are the phases', 'workstream plan', 'how do we sequence this', 'who owns what', 'task codes', 'matter setup', 'workstream plan', 'matter plan', 'rolling wave', 'plan the next phase', 'what comes first', 'kickoff agenda'.

82

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/matter-plan-builder/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Discovery

100%

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 is a strong, well-crafted skill description that clearly defines its domain (legal matter planning), lists specific concrete deliverables, and provides extensive trigger guidance with both a 'Use when' clause and an explicit 'Trigger on' list. The description uses proper third-person voice and covers natural user language variations thoroughly. Minor note: 'workstream plan' and 'matter plan' appear duplicated in the trigger list, but this doesn't materially detract from quality.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: converting scope into a structured matter plan, phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, and matter setup decisions. These are concrete, domain-specific deliverables.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (convert scope into structured matter plan with phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, matter setup decisions) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause plus a detailed 'Trigger on:' list with specific phrases).

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including 'build a plan', 'matter plan', 'project plan', 'what are the phases', 'who owns what', 'task codes', 'kickoff agenda', and more. These are phrases users would naturally say when needing this skill.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche in legal matter planning. Terms like 'matter plan', 'task codes', 'matter setup', 'workstream plan', and 'rolling wave' are domain-specific and unlikely to conflict with generic project management or other skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Implementation

55%

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

The skill is exceptionally thorough and actionable, with precise field schemas, clear workflows, and well-defined operating modes that cover real-world planning scenarios comprehensively. However, it is severely undermined by its length — it reads as a training manual rather than a skill file, with extensive prose explanations of why decisions matter, essay-length failure mode descriptions, and domain knowledge that should be in referenced files rather than inline. The content would be significantly more effective at roughly one-third its current length with supporting reference files.

Suggestions

Extract domain knowledge sections (matter type phase patterns, common planning failures, standard plan fields) into separate referenced files (e.g., PHASE_PATTERNS.md, PLAN_FIELDS.md) and replace with concise summaries and links.

Remove explanatory prose that justifies design decisions (e.g., why lawyers don't update plans, why matter setup isn't a billing admin task) — these are persuasive arguments for humans, not instructions for Claude.

Condense the Common Planning Failures section to a bullet-point checklist rather than multi-paragraph essays for each failure mode.

Remove redundant content — Mode 5's rationale about lawyers not updating plans appears both in Operating Modes and in Common Planning Failures with nearly identical arguments.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely verbose at ~400+ lines. Contains extensive explanations of why things matter ('A plan that exists only in the partner's head is not a plan — it is an intention'), lengthy descriptions of common failures that read as essays rather than instructions, and repeated justifications for design decisions (e.g., the multi-paragraph explanation of why lawyers don't update plans in Mode 5 and again in Common Planning Failures). Much of the domain knowledge and failure mode content explains concepts an LLM can reason about without being told.

1 / 3

Actionability

Highly actionable with specific field schemas for every plan component (workstream headers, task entries, milestone entries, dependency entries), exact column orders for workstream plan tables, concrete naming conventions (e.g., [MatterCode]-T-001), explicit field mappings from intake to plan, and precise output requirements. The step-by-step process gives concrete instructions at each stage.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear 6-step sequential process with explicit validation checkpoints: Step 1 requires confirming scope baseline and owner names before proceeding (with a hard stop), Step 5 builds setup recommendations before finalizing, and Step 6 produces outputs in a defined sequence. The skill includes explicit gates ('Do not proceed to plan output until the user has responded') and feedback loops for scope gaps. Mode 5 includes a confirmation-list review step before producing updates.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. The domain knowledge sections (matter type phase patterns, common planning failures), standard plan fields, and communication rhythm sections are all inline despite being reference material that could be split into separate files. The skill would benefit enormously from a concise overview with links to detailed reference documents for phase patterns, field schemas, and failure modes.

1 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
legalopsconsulting/lpm-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.