000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator
Validate messaging consistency across website, GitHub repos, and local documentation generating read-only discrepancy reports. Use when checking content alignment or finding mixed messaging. Trigger with phrases like "check consistency", "validate documentation", or "audit messaging".
74
Quality
56%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
86%
1.17xAverage score across 6 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./data/000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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 well-crafted skill description that excels in completeness and trigger term quality by explicitly stating both what the skill does and when to use it, with natural user phrases. The specificity could be slightly improved by listing more concrete actions beyond validation and report generation, but overall it provides sufficient detail for skill selection.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (messaging consistency) and mentions specific sources (website, GitHub repos, local documentation) and output type (read-only discrepancy reports), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond 'validate' and 'generate reports'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (validate messaging consistency across multiple sources, generate discrepancy reports) and when (explicit 'Use when' clause with triggers and a 'Trigger with phrases' section providing concrete examples). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Explicitly lists natural trigger phrases users would say: 'check consistency', 'validate documentation', 'audit messaging', plus includes terms like 'content alignment' and 'mixed messaging' that users might naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Has a clear niche focused specifically on cross-platform messaging consistency validation with distinct triggers; unlikely to conflict with general documentation or code review skills due to specific focus on 'consistency', 'alignment', and 'messaging audit'. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
22%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill content is a skeleton that describes what should happen without providing any concrete guidance on how to do it. It lacks executable code, specific commands, comparison algorithms, or criteria for identifying discrepancies. The content reads more like a feature description than actionable instructions for Claude.
Suggestions
Add concrete code or commands for fetching and comparing content (e.g., specific WebFetch patterns, diff algorithms, or comparison functions)
Define explicit criteria for what constitutes a 'critical discrepancy' vs 'warning' vs 'informational note' with examples
Include a sample output report structure showing the expected Markdown format with actual example content
Add validation steps such as 'verify all sources are accessible before comparison' and 'confirm report was written successfully'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is relatively brief but includes some unnecessary padding like 'This skill provides automated assistance for the described functionality' which adds no value. The Resources section lists vague concepts rather than actionable references. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions are entirely abstract and vague - 'Identify and discover all content sources' and 'Compare content systematically' provide no concrete commands, code, or specific methods. There's no executable guidance on HOW to perform any of these steps. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | While steps are numbered, they lack any validation checkpoints, specific tools/commands, or feedback loops. For a task involving content comparison across multiple sources, there's no guidance on what constitutes a discrepancy or how to verify findings. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to external files (errors.md, examples.md) are present and one-level deep, but the main content is too thin to justify the split. The skill offloads critical information (examples, error handling) without providing enough substance in the main file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- majiayu000/claude-skill-registry-data
- Commit
2bbaa03
- 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.