02-meta-skill-forge-150

[02] META. Create new skills when existing ones don't cover the task. Analyze unique requirements, build framework (Frame → Research → Plan → Execute), integrate risks, and declare new skill. Use when facing novel problems that existing skills can't address.

1.62x

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

96%

1.62x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/data/02-meta-skill-forge-150/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

45%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 is a well-sequenced meta-skill protocol with explicit checkpoints, but it is token-heavy due to redundant repeated templates, relies on placeholder scaffolding rather than concrete detail, and makes no use of progressive disclosure despite its length.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the proposal/template material: keep one canonical Skill File Template and reference it from Steps 6-7 and the Examples instead of restating it three times.

Move the full Skill File Template and worked Examples into separate reference files (e.g. references/skill-template.md, references/examples.md) and link to them from the body to improve progressive disclosure.

Replace some bracketed placeholders with one concrete, filled-in worked example so the guidance reads as executable rather than pseudocode.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The 386-line body repeats near-identical scaffolding multiple times (Execution Protocol step templates, a separate Output Format proposal, a full Skill File Template, and an Examples block all restate the same proposal/template), which is noticeably verbose with several padded sections rather than the mostly-efficient 3.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides a structured step-by-step process and templates, but the guidance is overwhelmingly bracketed placeholders ([name-150], [Setup step 1]) rather than concrete executable detail, matching the 'pseudocode/incomplete' anchor and not the mostly-executable 4.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-7 are clearly sequenced with an explicit quality-assurance step, quality gates after each phase, and risk integration; it falls short of 5 because there is no validate→fix→retry feedback loop for the forging process itself.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	This is a monolithic single file over 50 lines with no bundle files and no external references, and large blocks that clearly belong in separate files (the full Skill File Template, the Examples) are inlined, fitting the 'minimal structure / inlined content' anchor better than the 3 which requires references to be present.	2 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

67%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 states both what the skill does and when to use it with several concrete actions and a clear niche, using appropriate third-person imperative voice. It is held back by jargon-leaning trigger phrasing and trigger-term coverage that misses common user synonyms.

Suggestions

Drop the '[02] META.' prefix and 'forge' jargon in favor of natural user phrasing like 'Create a new skill when existing skills don't fit the task'.

Add common trigger synonyms users would actually say, e.g. 'Use when you need to make, build, or define a new skill for a problem no current skill handles'.

Tighten the 'when' clause with concrete triggers such as 'repeated pattern that needs formalizing' to push completeness toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions ('Create new skills', 'Analyze unique requirements', 'build framework (Frame → Research → Plan → Execute)', 'integrate risks', 'declare new skill') with only minor coverage gaps, matching the 'several specific actions' anchor rather than the fully comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Create new skills...declare new skill') and when ('Use when facing novel problems that existing skills can't address'); the 'when' is present and concrete but could be more specific, fitting the 4 anchor and not the fully explicit 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural phrases ('existing skills don't cover the task', 'novel problems') but the 'META'/'forge' framing is jargon-leaning and it misses common user variations like 'make a new skill', so it sits at 'some relevant keywords' rather than strong 4 coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Has a clear niche (forging skills only when none fit) with distinct triggers and minor overlap risk; it is not the crisp 5 because the 'novel problems' phrasing is somewhat broad and could overlap with general planning 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: majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
Path: skills/data/02-meta-skill-forge-150/SKILL.md
Commit: 04324c6

Reviewed: about 21 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.