CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

flow-deliver

Multi-AI validation, scoring, and review using available external providers (Double Diamond Deliver phase)

Quality

59%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/flow-deliver/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%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.

The skill delivers concrete, executable orchestration commands with a genuinely enforced step sequence and validation gate, but the body is heavily duplicated (three versions of context detection and the banner, two conflicting step enumerations) and bloats the context window with an inlined 130-line example report. Deduplicating the contract vs the workflow sections and splitting the example report and banner templates into reference files would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Deduplicate aggressively: keep only the EXECUTION CONTRACT's 7-step sequence and delete the repeated 'Deliver Workflow'/'Visual Indicators'/'How It Works' sections that restate the same steps with conflicting numbering and banner formats — this alone would remove ~200 lines.

Move the ~130-line Example 1 validation report and the banner templates into a references/ file (e.g., references/report-format.md) and keep only a brief pointer in SKILL.md, and fill or remove the {{PREAMBLE}}/{{VISUAL_INDICATORS}}/{{QUALITY_GATES}} placeholders.

Reconcile the step numbering: make 'Implementation Instructions' reference the contract's 7 steps exactly (currently Step 3 there is 'Execute orchestrate.sh' while the contract's Step 3 is 'Read Prior State'), so the agent follows one unambiguous sequence.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~875-line body contains severe padding: context detection and banner instructions are duplicated almost verbatim (EXECUTION CONTRACT Steps 1-2 vs 'Deliver Workflow' Steps 1-2 vs a third 'Visual Indicators' banner block), three different banner variants, and a ~130-line full example validation report inlined — noticeably below anchor 3's 'mostly efficient', fitting anchor 2's 'several unnecessary... padded sections'.

2 / 5

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: concrete bash commands for state management, orchestrate.sh invocation, validation-file verification, and PR comment posting, plus a concrete dev-subtype table. Minor gaps: unfilled template placeholders ({{PREAMBLE}}, {{VISUAL_INDICATORS}}, {{QUALITY_GATES}}) and the placeholder-style TaskCreate/TaskUpdate pseudocode ('taskId: "..."') keep it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The EXECUTION CONTRACT does give a blocking 7-step sequence with an explicit verification gate (Step 5) and error handling, but 'Implementation Instructions' renumbers it as 5 blocking steps and 'How It Works' presents yet another 5-step flow with conflicting banner formats — the reader must reconcile three different step enumerations, fitting anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'clear sequence with minor gaps'.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers provide structure and plugin scripts are referenced by explicit absolute paths, but no bundle reference files exist and large content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined (the full example report, repeated banner templates, quality-gates details), matching anchor 3's 'content that should be separate is inline' rather than anchor 4's 'most content appropriately placed'.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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.

The description clearly states what the skill does at a domain level, but stops short of concrete capabilities, provides no 'use when' trigger guidance, and leans on generic terms (validation, review, scoring) that overlap with common review skills. Adding an explicit trigger clause and concrete actions (e.g., code review, security audit, quality scoring, PR report posting) would lift all dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to review, validate, or score code or documents before shipping, or mentions a deliver/deliver-phase review') to address completeness and trigger guidance.

Replace generic verbs with concrete actions: 'Runs adversarial multi-provider code review (Codex CLI for code quality, Antigravity CLI for security/edge cases), computes quality scores, and posts a validation report to the PR'.

Include natural trigger synonyms (code review, security audit, pre-ship check, quality gates) to improve trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness against generic review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Multi-AI validation, scoring, and review" names the domain and three actions, but the actions are generic verbs with no concrete objects (e.g., code review, security audit, quality gates, PR reports) — comparable to anchor 3's 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive', and below anchor 4's 'several specific actions'.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is present ("Multi-AI validation, scoring, and review using available external providers") but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines — anchor 3: 'Has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"validation", "scoring", and "review" are natural user terms, but the description is missing common variations and synonyms users would actually say ("code review", "audit", "pre-ship check", "quality check"), matching anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "Multi-AI" and "(Double Diamond Deliver phase)" framing carves out a niche, but the exposed trigger terms ("validation", "review", "scoring") are broad and would overlap with generic code-review and quality-check skills — anchor 3: 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'; anchor 4 would require lower overlap risk.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

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

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (876 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

nyldn/claude-octopus

Path

skills/flow-deliver/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.