CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

dispatching-parallel-agents

Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies

Quality

61%

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/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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-structured, genuinely actionable instruction skill: the four-step dispatch pattern, annotated example agent prompt, and ❌/✅ mistake contrasts give Claude everything needed to execute, and verification steps are explicit. The main weakness is redundancy — two sections restate earlier content, and 'Key Benefits' adds padding that costs tokens without adding guidance.

Suggestions

Merge 'When NOT to Use' into the existing 'Don't use when' bullets — they say the same thing twice.

Fold the 'Verification' section into step 4 of The Pattern (or vice versa) so post-dispatch validation appears exactly once.

Cut the 'Key Benefits' section — its rationale (parallelization, focus, speed) is inferable and adds no executable guidance.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The core sections (The Pattern, Agent Prompt Structure, Common Mistakes, Example) are tight and example-driven, but there is real redundancy: 'When NOT to Use' repeats the earlier 'Don't use when' bullets almost verbatim, the 'Verification' section restates step 4 of The Pattern, and 'Key Benefits' is rationale padding Claude does not need. This matches anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') — the padding is localized rather than pervasive, so it sits above anchor 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: the full example agent prompt includes real test names, specific fixes ('Freezing time with travel_to', 'Time.current / Date.current'), explicit constraints ('Do NOT add sleep, retries, or loosen assertions'), an exact run command ('bin/rails test test/models/subscription_test.rb'), and a required return format. It falls short of anchor 5 only because the dispatch snippets use '...' placeholder prompts rather than a complete end-to-end invocation.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Pattern gives a clear 4-step sequence (identify domains, create focused tasks, dispatch in one message, review and integrate) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Verify fixes don't conflict', 'Run full test suite', 'Spot check - Agents can make systematic errors'), plus a decision tree for when to apply the pattern. Validation is present so the batch-operation cap does not apply; the gap to anchor 5 is the absence of an explicit error-recovery loop for what to do when integration fails or agent fixes conflict.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files, and nothing here (a reasoning pattern, not an API reference) genuinely needs splitting into separate files. Sections are clearly headed and navigable in one pass. Minor organization gaps — the duplicated when-not-to-use and verification content — keep it at anchor 4 ('good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps') rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

36%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 has a well-formed and appropriately specific 'Use when...' trigger clause, but it omits any statement of what the skill does, leaving the 'what' to be inferred from the name field. It also misses the most natural trigger vocabulary ('parallel', 'concurrent', 'agents'), which weakens both discoverability and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Lead with a 'what' clause before the trigger, e.g. 'Dispatches one agent per independent problem domain to work tasks concurrently. Use when facing 2+ independent tasks...'

Add natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'parallel', 'in parallel', 'concurrent', 'delegate to agents', 'unrelated failures'.

Keep the existing 'without shared state or sequential dependencies' phrasing — it is the strongest, most distinctive part of the current description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description states trigger conditions concretely ('2+ independent tasks', 'without shared state or sequential dependencies') but names no capability or action — what the skill actually does (dispatch parallel agents) appears only in the name field, not the description. This matches anchor 2 ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic') better than anchor 1, since it is not pure abstract fluff, and better than anchor 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions to be listed.

2 / 5

Completeness

The description is entirely a 'when' clause ('Use when facing 2+ independent tasks...') with no 'what' — what the skill actually does when triggered is never stated. This matches anchor 2's condition exactly ('only when is present without what'); anchor 3 is not reached because it requires a clear 'what', which is absent. The strength of the 'when' clause is credited under trigger_term_quality rather than double-counted here.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'independent tasks', 'shared state', and 'sequential dependencies' are relevant phrases a user in this situation might say, but the most natural terms — 'parallel', 'in parallel', 'concurrent', 'delegate', 'agents' — are absent, notably 'parallel' itself despite being the skill's core concept. This fits anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') and falls short of anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger conditions ('no shared state', 'no sequential dependencies') are technical and narrow the niche, but '2+ independent tasks' is a phrase that could also fire for task-planning, todo-breakdown, or workflow-orchestration skills. This fits anchor 3 ('somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills') rather than anchor 4, which would require the description to more clearly stake out the parallel-agent-dispatch niche.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

20

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

lucianghinda/superpowers-ruby

Path

skills/dispatching-parallel-agents/SKILL.md

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.