CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

writing-for-agents

Levers for writing documents an agent reads: context pointers, progressive disclosure, completion criteria, leading words and pruning. Use when creating or editing a skill, an agent, an instruction file, AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md.

Quality

87%

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

86%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 exceptionally tight conceptual reference: it coins and consistently uses a compact vocabulary, pairs every lever with its failure mode and a concrete test, and keeps everything appropriately in one navigable file. The main gap is the lack of an integrating procedure that sequences the levers when applying them to a real document.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense, high-signal prose that defines its own coined vocabulary (context load, sprawl, sediment, leading word) instead of re-explaining concepts Claude already knows, and contains no padded passages. Every section introduces a distinct lever with its failure mode and cure, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout: worked micro-examples ("'fast, deterministic, low-overhead' becomes *tight*"), explicit tests ("settle a disagreement by running the document, not by debate"), and decisive rules ("When a sentence fails, delete the whole sentence"). Per the instruction-skill scoring note the absence of code is not penalized, but the guidance remains heuristic rather than fully copy-paste ready, so anchor 4 fits better than 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a reference skill with no multi-step procedure or destructive/batch operations, so no validation cap applies; each section instead presents clear conditional decision rules ("Sharpen the bound first... Only if it is irreducibly fuzzy *and* you observe the rush, hide the later steps"). It sits at 4 rather than 5 because the levers are presented as peers without an integrated order for applying them when auditing a document.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories) and the body points to no companion files, so all content is appropriately placed in a single well-sectioned SKILL.md of moderate size with easy header navigation. Nothing here clearly belongs in a separate file, and the skill's own doctrine (inline what every branch needs) is practiced, matching the top anchor's intent.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 front-loads the domain, enumerates the skill's levers, and carries an explicit Use-when clause naming concrete targets including AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md. The only weaknesses are a topic-list framing of capabilities and a few missing natural synonyms such as 'prompt'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates five concrete levers ("context pointers, progressive disclosure, completion criteria, leading words and pruning") plus a concrete action ("creating or editing"), matching the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of 5 because the levers are named as topics rather than operationalized actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Levers for writing documents an agent reads: context pointers, progressive disclosure...") and when ("Use when creating or editing a skill, an agent, an instruction file, AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md") with a concrete Use-when clause. This matches anchor 5; anchor 4's caveat ('when' could be more explicit) does not apply since the triggers are specific and enumerated.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"skill, an agent, an instruction file, AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md" are terms users would naturally say, giving good keyword coverage including specific filenames. A few natural variants are missing (e.g. "prompt", "system prompt", "documentation"), keeping it below the comprehensive-synonym anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (writing documents an agent consumes) is clear with distinct triggers like AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. It is not 5 because 'an agent' and 'an instruction file' are broad enough to overlap with prompt-engineering or documentation-writing skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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/writing-for-agents/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.