CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

panel-majority-vote

Three isolated reviewers vote PASS or BLOCK on a high-risk change; the majority decides, and every MUST-FIX any of them raises is fixed. Use for changes to auth, payments, data migrations or anything that deletes data, after a third fast-review FAIL, or when someone asks for an independent panel.

77

Quality

97%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%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.

An exemplary skill body: a complete, tightly sequenced workflow with an explicit feedback loop, anti-gaming guard ("never reword it to get a PASS"), a fixed output contract, and an escalation stop — all in about 26 lines with no wasted tokens. Nothing material is missing for the skill's scope.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~26-line body contains zero padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; even the opening scoping sentence earns its place by delimiting the boundary with the sibling fast-review skill. Every token instructs.

5 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is copy-paste ready: the exact question ("Is this change safe to merge?"), the materials that answer it, a four-section reviewer output template, the counting rule, the union-fix rule with tally marking (2/3), and the escalation rule. Not 4: there are no gaps in the executable instructions.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Five explicitly sequenced steps with validation checkpoints throughout: the vote is the gate, step 4 requires every MUST-FIX "fixed, or answered with evidence", and step 5 is an explicit feedback loop (BLOCK → change work → re-run the same question → stop after a second BLOCK). The output-format block doubles as a reviewer checklist. Not 4: checkpoints and the error-recovery loop are explicit, not implicit.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and needs no external references — the rubric's simple-skill exception applies, and the numbered steps plus the code-block template are well organized with no content that belongs in a separate file.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong description: it states a concrete, distinctive procedure in third person and gives an explicit "Use for" clause with three concrete trigger conditions. The only gap is synonym coverage in the trigger list (e.g., permissions, schema/database migrations, irreversible changes).

Suggestions

Add natural trigger synonyms to the "Use for" clause — e.g., "permissions or security-critical changes", "schema or database migrations", "irreversible changes" — to broaden keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Three isolated reviewers vote PASS or BLOCK", "the majority decides", and "every MUST-FIX any of them raises is fixed" name multiple concrete actions that comprehensively cover the procedure. Not 4: there are no coverage gaps within the skill's scope.

5 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is explicit ("Three isolated reviewers vote PASS or BLOCK... the majority decides, and every MUST-FIX... is fixed") and the "when" is an explicit "Use for" clause with three concrete trigger conditions. Not 4: neither half could be more explicit.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"auth, payments, data migrations or anything that deletes data", "independent panel", and "fast-review FAIL" are natural user phrasings with good coverage. Not 5: common synonyms are missing — "permissions"/"security" (the body says "auth and permissions" but the description omits permissions), "schema/database migration", and "irreversible".

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The panel-voting mechanism plus gating triggers ("after a third fast-review FAIL", "when someone asks for an independent panel") form a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against generic review skills. Not 4: the domain triggers (auth, payments, migrations, data deletion) are precise and the mechanism is unique.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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

monkilabs/opencastle

Path

src/orchestrator/skills/panel-majority-vote/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.