CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

critique

Run a 5-dimension expert design review on any HTML artifact in the project — Philosophy / Visual hierarchy / Detail / Functionality / Innovation, each scored 0–10. Outputs a single self-contained HTML report with a radar chart, evidence-backed scores, and three lists: Keep / Fix / Quick-wins. Use when the brief asks for a "design review", "design critique", "5 维度评审", "design audit", or "what's wrong with my design".

72

Quality

89%

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

The canonical home for this skill is critique in nexu-io/open-design

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%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.

A well-structured, highly actionable instruction skill: concrete rubrics with band anchors, a worked example, explicit output contract, and a clear 5-step workflow. The main gaps are a slightly long single-file body (dimension rubric detail is reference material), no final self-validation pass in the workflow, and a few trimmable rhetorical flourishes.

Suggestions

Trim rhetorical flourish in the dimension anchors (e.g. 'the kind of detail that makes printed-by-hand typographers nod', 'Magazine-grade') to sharpen conciseness — the band definitions are already sufficient calibration.

Add an explicit final validation step to the workflow, e.g. 'Step 6 — before emitting, re-check the report against the Hard rules (5 scores, evidence per score, mean ≤ 8, single-file HTML)' to close the feedback loop.

Move the five per-dimension anchors and evidence checklists into a one-level-deep reference file (e.g. references/dimensions.md) and keep only the one-line question and band summary in SKILL.md, improving progressive disclosure and token efficiency.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely efficient — band anchors, evidence checklists, and a compact example evidence block all earn their tokens by calibrating judgment rather than teaching known concepts. Minor trimmable flourish remains (e.g. 'the kind of detail that makes printed-by-hand typographers nod', 'Magazine-grade', 'three styles in a trench coat'), matching the 4-anchor 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'. Not a 3: there is no padded explanation of concepts Claude already knows; not a 5: the colorful asides and some bilingual labels cost tokens without adding instruction.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully actionable for an instruction-only skill: exact report structure (header, SVG radar, 5 dimension cards, combined action lists), per-dimension 0–10 band definitions, bullet-count constraints ('Keep (3–5 bullets)... each ≤ 1 sentence... 5–15 minutes each'), a worked evidence-paragraph example with class names and line-level specifics, and a copy-paste output contract with the artifact wrapper. Matches the 5-anchor 'specific examples cover the common cases'.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequence (acquire → read enough to score → score with evidence → build action lists → emit report) with useful checkpoints like 'If multiple HTML files exist, ask which one' and 'Do not score from frontmatter alone', plus a scoring-discipline self-check section. This matches the 4-anchor 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. Not a 5: there is no explicit validate-and-recover loop on the emitted report (e.g. re-checking the artifact against the hard rules before finishing); not a 3: the sequence is complete and checkpoints are explicit, and no destructive/batch validation cap applies.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, assets/), and the body has no dangling references to external files — it is a self-contained single-file skill with well-organized sections (When to use, What you produce, The 5 dimensions, Workflow, Output contract, Hard rules). Matches the 4-anchor 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'. Not a 5: at ~220 lines, the five per-dimension rubrics (anchors + evidence lists) are reference-style material that could live in a one-level-deep reference file to slim SKILL.md; not a 3: nothing is buried or mis-signaled.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

96%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: concrete capabilities, explicit trigger guidance with natural user phrasing, and a clearly bounded niche. The only weakness is mild overlap risk between 'design review'/'design audit' and adjacent design or code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, specific actions: 'Run a 5-dimension expert design review... Philosophy / Visual hierarchy / Detail / Functionality / Innovation, each scored 0–10' plus concrete outputs ('single self-contained HTML report with a radar chart, evidence-backed scores, and three lists: Keep / Fix / Quick-wins'). This matches the 5-anchor ('lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'). Not a 4: coverage of both the inputs reviewed and the exact output artifacts leaves only minor gaps at most.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is fully specified (5 named dimensions, 0–10 scores, HTML report with radar chart and three action lists) and 'when' is explicit with concrete trigger phrases ('Use when the brief asks for a "design review"... or "what's wrong with my design"'). Exactly matches the 5-anchor example pattern.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would actually say are comprehensively covered with synonyms: 'design review', 'design critique', 'design audit', '5 维度评审', and the very natural "what's wrong with my design". Matches the 5-anchor's 'comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms'. Not a 4: the synonym set (review/critique/audit) plus the colloquial complaint phrase covers the natural ways this need is expressed; file extensions are not relevant to a design-review need.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (design critique of HTML artifacts) with distinct triggers — mostly matches the 4-anchor 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. Not a 5: broad phrases like 'design review'/'design audit' could plausibly collide with general design-generation or code-review skills; not a 3: the scope ('any HTML artifact', Keep/Fix/Quick-wins critique output) keeps it well differentiated.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
nexu-io/open-design
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.