write-openers

Use when drafting evidence-backed opening lines or subject lines for an eligible contact.

Quality

78%

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 ./skills/write-openers/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

85%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 is a well-structured, lean offline-drafting skill with concrete gate-based guidance, explicit guardrails, and a quality checklist. Its main gap is the absence of a worked example showing drafted output with fact-to-copy tracing, which would lift actionability and workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Add a short worked example in the Example invocation section showing one or two actual opener/subject options with their fact-ledger IDs and boundary notes, so the fact-to-copy trace is demonstrated end-to-end.

Make the step-5 revise/reject loop an explicit 'revise against the ledger, re-map, and re-check until every phrase traces' feedback loop to strengthen workflow clarity for iteration.

Optionally show a tiny contrast of a rejected tactic (e.g. 'I noticed...') versus its evidence-backed rewrite to make the rejection rules immediately actionable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and efficient with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Purpose, Required inputs, Workflow, Output format, Guardrails, Quality check) earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor; not a 4 because no over-explanation is present to trim.	5 / 5
Actionability	Provides highly concrete, executable guidance via explicit gate statuses (STOP, NEEDS VERIFICATION, NOT READY TO SEND, DRAFT FOR HUMAN REVIEW), explicit rejection lists, and the exact-date rule, matching 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'; not a 5 because no worked example of actual drafted copy with fact-ID tracing is shown, and not a 3 because the guidance is concrete rather than pseudocode-level.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear six-step sequence is present with explicit gating checkpoints (eligibility/opt-out gates) and a final Quality check, matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'; not a 5 because the revise-or-reject loop in step 5 is stated but not spelled out as an explicit fix-and-revalidate feedback loop, and not a 3 because validation checkpoints are explicit rather than missing.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and is organized into clear, well-signaled sections with no need for external references, matching the simple-skill exception where well-organized sections alone score 5; not a 4 because no organization gaps are present.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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 cleanly states both what the skill does and when to invoke it with a concrete, third-person trigger clause and a distinctive compliance-governed niche. It is concise and accurate, though its vocabulary is somewhat narrow, which limits trigger-term breadth.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (openers and subject lines) plus one concrete action ('drafting evidence-backed opening lines or subject lines'), matching the anchor for a single clear action without comprehensive coverage; not a 2 because the action is concrete rather than generic, and not a 4 because only one action is listed.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' ('drafting evidence-backed opening lines or subject lines') and 'when' ('Use when drafting ... for an eligible contact') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor; not a 4 because the 'when' is already explicit rather than weakly implied.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms ('opening lines', 'subject lines', 'eligible contact') but offers a narrow vocabulary with few synonyms or variations, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor; not a 4 because coverage is not broad.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (compliance-governed, evidence-backed outreach drafting) with low overlap risk, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'; not a 5 because the trigger is slightly less sharply discriminating than a fully unique one, and not a 3 because it is far more specific than generic document/file skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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: llaskin/AI-SDR-Skill-Pack
Path: skills/write-openers/SKILL.md
Commit: 56ebfd3

Reviewed: ~24 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.