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
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 ./skills/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 clearly communicates its purpose, includes explicit trigger guidance with natural user phrases, and occupies a distinct niche. The main area for improvement is listing more specific concrete actions beyond 'validate' and 'generate reports' to better convey the full range of capabilities.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions to improve specificity, e.g., 'Compares taglines, feature descriptions, and version references across website, GitHub repos, and local documentation to surface inconsistencies.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (messaging consistency across website, GitHub repos, local documentation) and the core action (validate/generate discrepancy reports), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond validation and report generation. It's more specific than vague but not comprehensively listing distinct capabilities. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (validate messaging consistency across website, GitHub repos, and local docs, generating read-only discrepancy reports) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause plus 'Trigger with phrases like' providing concrete trigger guidance). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'check consistency', 'validate documentation', 'audit messaging', 'content alignment', 'mixed messaging'. These are phrases users would naturally say when needing this skill, with good variation coverage. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche: cross-platform messaging consistency validation with read-only discrepancy reports. The combination of specific sources (website, GitHub repos, local docs) and the read-only constraint makes it unlikely to conflict with general documentation or content skills. | 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 is essentially a high-level outline or placeholder rather than actionable guidance. It describes what should happen at an abstract level but provides no concrete implementation details — no code, no specific commands, no comparison algorithms, no example outputs, and no real validation steps. The overview sentence is a tautology that adds no value.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract instruction steps with concrete, executable guidance — e.g., specific WebFetch commands to pull website content, specific file glob patterns for local docs, and actual comparison logic or scripts.
Add at least one concrete example showing input sources and the expected output report format with actual sample content and discrepancies.
Include validation checkpoints in the workflow, such as verifying source accessibility before comparison and validating report completeness after generation.
Replace the vague Resources section with actual links or file references, and replace the meaningless Overview sentence with a concise statement of what specific content sources and messaging elements are compared.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content has some filler ('This skill provides automated assistance for the described functionality' is meaningless) and the Resources section lists vague topics with no links. However, it's not excessively verbose overall. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions are entirely abstract and vague — 'Identify and discover all content sources', 'Extract key messaging', 'Compare content systematically' — with zero concrete code, commands, specific file patterns, comparison logic, or executable guidance. There is nothing copy-paste ready or specific enough to act on. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | While steps are numbered, they are high-level descriptions rather than actionable workflow steps. There are no validation checkpoints, no feedback loops, no specific tools or commands to run, and no error recovery guidance within the workflow itself. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files for errors and examples (errors.md, examples.md), which is appropriate progressive disclosure. However, the references use template variables ({baseDir}) without explaining them, and the Resources section lists topics with no actual links or file references. | 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
- Commit
632759f
- 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.