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".

1.17x

Quality

58%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

86%

1.17x

Average score across 6 eval scenarios

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/data/000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

38%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 body has a clear section structure and a sensible high-level workflow, but it lacks concrete executable guidance and its external references point to non-existent files. Filler prose in the Overview and Resources sections also dilutes token efficiency.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance to the Instructions: specific commands or methods for discovering sources, extracting messaging, and diffing across website/GitHub/local docs (e.g., exact grep patterns, WebFetch usage, or a script entry point).

Create the referenced bundle files (references/errors.md and references/examples.md) or remove the dangling 'See ...' pointers so progressive-disclosure navigation is not broken.

Delete the filler Overview sentence and the generic Resources bullet list; replace with only material Claude would not already know.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly terse, but includes unnecessary filler such as 'This skill provides automated assistance for the described functionality.' and a generic Resources list ('Content consistency best practices', 'Documentation style guides') that adds no executable value.	3 / 5
Actionability	The Instructions are high-level hints ('Compare content systematically', 'Extract key messaging, features, versions') with no concrete commands, code, methods, or specific tooling, leaving Claude without the specifics needed to execute.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A six-step sequence is present (discover, extract, compare, identify, report, action items), but there are no validation or verification checkpoints anywhere in the workflow.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	References are clearly signaled ('See {baseDir}/references/errors.md', 'See {baseDir}/references/examples.md'), but those files do not exist in the bundle (references/ is empty), so the promised navigation leads nowhere.	2 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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 is strong: it explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, backed by concrete, natural trigger phrases and a clearly scoped multi-source niche. Its only real gap is action specificity — it names the domain and outputs but does not enumerate a comprehensive set of concrete operations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (messaging consistency across website, GitHub, and local docs) and two concrete actions ('Validate messaging consistency', 'generating read-only discrepancy reports'), but does not enumerate several specific actions for comprehensive coverage.	3 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states what it does ('Validate messaging consistency...generating read-only discrepancy reports') and explicitly when to use it with concrete trigger phrases ('Use when checking content alignment or finding mixed messaging').	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Provides good natural trigger coverage with explicit phrases like 'check consistency', 'validate documentation', 'audit messaging', 'content alignment', and 'mixed messaging'; a few synonyms are missing but users would naturally say these.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The cross-source messaging-consistency niche is mostly distinct with dedicated triggers, but phrases like 'validate documentation' and 'audit messaging' carry minor overlap risk with general doc-linting skills.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 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	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
Path: skills/data/000-jeremy-content-consistency-validator/SKILL.md
Commit: 04324c6

Reviewed: about 22 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.