digital-brain

This skill should be used for personal operating-system workflows: content creation, voice consistency, relationship lookup, meeting preparation, weekly review, goal tracking, personal brand management, and network management.

Quality

58%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./examples/digital-brain-skill/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is structured and shows a clear progressive-disclosure intent with concrete file paths and named scripts. Weaknesses are duplicated workflows, lack of executable code in the body, no validation checkpoints, and several referenced files that do not exist in the bundle.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the content-creation workflow that appears in both "Practical Guidance" and "Examples" to improve token efficiency.

Add explicit validation/verification steps to the weekly review and content pipeline workflows (e.g., confirm an idea is logged before drafting, verify a contact exists before generating a brief).

Create the referenced module and data files (identity/IDENTITY.md, content/CONTENT.md, network/NETWORK.md, operations/OPERATIONS.md, agents/AGENTS.md, and the agents/scripts/*.py files) so the one-level-deep references actually resolve.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is well-organized with tables and compact lists, but the same workflows recur across "Practical Guidance" and "Examples" (e.g., the content-creation steps appear twice), adding some redundancy that keeps it from fully lean.	2 / 3
Actionability	Concrete file paths and named scripts (weekly_review.py, stale_contacts.py) and numbered steps give solid guidance, but the body itself contains no executable code — the real schemas live in a referenced file — so it is descriptive rather than copy-paste ready.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multi-step processes (content creation, meeting prep, weekly review) are clearly numbered and sequenced, but there are no explicit validation or verification checkpoints, leaving the sequence without feedback loops.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The L1/L2/L3 architecture and one-level-deep reference links are well signaled, but the referenced module docs and data files (identity/IDENTITY.md, network/contacts.jsonl, agents/scripts/weekly_review.py) do not exist in the bundle, so navigation is partly broken.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 specific and distinct, naming eight concrete capability domains within a clear personal-OS niche. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and limited natural trigger-term coverage, which cap completeness and trigger quality at 2.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause naming concrete user triggers (e.g., "Use when the user asks to write a post in their voice, look up a contact, or run a weekly review").

Surface natural trigger phrases users would say verbatim (e.g., "my voice", "who is [name]", "weekly review") directly in the description rather than only in the body.

Tighten the capability list so the most common triggers lead, improving both completeness and trigger-term quality.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names multiple concrete capability areas — "content creation, voice consistency, relationship lookup, meeting preparation, weekly review, goal tracking, personal brand management, and network management" — matching the anchor for listing several specific actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	It clearly answers "what" with a list of capabilities but lacks an explicit "when to use it" / "Use when..." clause, which the rubric caps at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like "content creation" and "weekly review" are relevant, but the description omits common natural variations a user would say and has no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, leaving it short of full coverage.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The personal-operating-system niche with distinct triggers ("voice consistency", "relationship lookup", "weekly review") is clearly distinguishable and unlikely to fire for the wrong skill.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 5 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: muratcankoylan/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering
Commit: c578e85

Reviewed: 7 days 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.