html-ppt-zhangzara-pin-and-paper

A field-biology capstone on urban pollinator decline — the survey design, the data, the contribution, and the caveats. Built as a decision-grade coursework defense deck for faculty reviewers.

Quality

57%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./design-templates/html-ppt-zhangzara-pin-and-paper/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%

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

The body is well-organized and token-efficient with a clear sequenced workflow, but it lacks validation checkpoints and ships with dangling references to missing bundle files (example.html, template.json, LICENSE), weakening both actionability and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Add a final verification step to the workflow, e.g. 'Open the cloned example.html in a browser and confirm slide navigation and styling load before delivering', to give the workflow an explicit checkpoint.

Restore the missing referenced files (example.html, template.json, LICENSE) to the bundle, or remove the references if they are not meant to ship, so no navigated path is a dead end.

Either inline a minimal complete deck skeleton in the output contract (instead of the `<html>...</html>` stub) or ensure example.html is present so the core artifact is genuinely copy-paste ready.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean metadata plus a tight 6-step workflow with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows (no 'what is HTML' filler); even the longer asset-clone step earns its tokens by explaining the 404 failure mode, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.	3 / 3
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and specific (exact asset paths, exact `<artifact>` wrapper, explicit design constraints), but the actual executable HTML template is not shown inline — only a `<html>...</html>` stub — and the core file to clone (example.html) is not present in the bundle, so it is not copy-paste ready as the level-3 anchor requires.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The six steps are clearly numbered and well-sequenced (clone → replace → preserve → adjust length → design missing → keep navigation), but there are no validation or verification checkpoints (e.g. 'confirm the deck renders and keyboard nav works'), which is the 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The overview is concise and asset references are one level deep and clearly signaled (assets/deck-stage.js, assets/styles.css, upstream URL), but several referenced files — example.html, template.json, and ./LICENSE — are absent from the bundle, leaving dangling references that undermine navigation.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 clearly communicates the deck's subject and audience but reads as a content summary rather than a capability statement, and it omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance. All dimensions land at the middle anchor as a result.

Suggestions

Reframe the description around the skill's actions in third person, e.g. 'Builds a decision-grade coursework defense deck... organizes survey design, data, contribution, and caveats into faculty-reviewer slides.'

Add an explicit trigger clause: 'Use when a student needs a senior-capstone or coursework defense deck, or mentions defense slides, capstone presentation, or faculty review.'

Include natural keyword variations users would actually say (e.g. 'capstone presentation', 'thesis defense slides', 'defense ppt') to improve trigger coverage and reduce overlap with sibling deck skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names a concrete domain ('urban pollinator decline', 'coursework defense deck for faculty reviewers') and the deliverable type, but frames the topic of the deck rather than listing the concrete actions the skill performs; it is not the level-3 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' pattern.	2 / 3
Completeness	It answers 'what' (a defense deck covering survey design, data, contribution, caveats) but never gives an explicit 'when to use it' clause; the 'when' is only implied, so per the guideline a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some natural domain terms ('coursework', 'defense deck', 'capstone', 'faculty reviewers'), but misses common variations a user would naturally say and lacks explicit trigger phrasing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The subject is fairly specific, but the skill sits in a family of defense-deck/coursework template skills (per frontmatter triggers), so it could overlap with sibling deck skills; this is the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor rather than a clear, conflict-free niche.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 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: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: nexu-io/open-design
Path: design-templates/html-ppt-zhangzara-pin-and-paper/SKILL.md
Commit: f2760fd

Reviewed: 2 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.