CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

skill-design-lineage

Persist design documents with branch tracking, revision chains, and cross-session discovery

53

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/skill-design-lineage/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%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 body built on concrete, copy-paste-ready bash snippets for a real multi-step process. Its main weaknesses are a step sequence that contradicts its own execution order (discovery/supersedes must precede the save), duplicated variable-resolution snippets, and unverifiable external file references with no progressive disclosure into bundle files.

Suggestions

Reorder the workflow so discovery and supersedes resolution (currently Steps 2-3) come before the save step (Step 1), or note explicitly that Step 1's $SUPERSEDES is set by the Step 3 block.

Fix keyword discovery to actually match individual keywords (e.g. grep -liE 'auth|refactor' built from the keyword list) and add a post-write verification (e.g. test -f "$FILEPATH") checkpoint.

Define SLUG/DESIGNS_DIR/BRANCH once and drop the four repeated resolution blocks, moving the design document template into a reference file and clarifying whether the skills/blocks/*.md paths exist in the deployment environment.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, and every section carries operational content — matching 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'. It is not a 5 because the SLUG/BRANCH/DATETIME resolution snippets are repeated across Filename Format, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, and Step 4, and the immutability rule is stated three times (Step 1, Integration Notes, Immutability Rule).

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is almost fully executable: concrete bash blocks for slug derivation, filename construction, writing the doc via heredoc, grep-based discovery, revision-chain walking, and cap enforcement, plus a concrete filename example. Not a 5 due to minor gaps: Step 1's heredoc references ${SUPERSEDES} before Step 3 shows how to set it, and 'grep -li "$KEYWORDS"' matches the keywords as one contiguous phrase rather than individual keyword matching as the prose claims.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps are clearly headed (Save, Discover, Link, Cross-Session Discovery) but the numbered order is incoherent with the actual workflow: Step 1's save heredoc consumes $SUPERSEDES, which is only populated by Step 3's discovery logic, so discovery and linking must precede saving. Fits 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' — the Step 2 user-confirmation is the only explicit checkpoint, and there is no post-write verification. Not a 4 because the mis-ordering is more than a minor gap.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single ~270-line file with no bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist), yet the body points to 'skills/blocks/domain-modeling.md' and 'skills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md', which are not part of this bundle — references present but not resolvable. Structure is decent (clear section headers), but the 45-line document template and the Integration Notes lists are inlined content that could live in separate files, matching 'Some structure but could be better organized'.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 terse, third-person description that clearly states what the skill does, but it omits any 'Use when...' trigger guidance and leans on internal jargon ('revision chains', 'cross-session discovery') over natural user phrasing. It is well above the bad examples yet below the good ones, which all pair capabilities with explicit trigger clauses.

Suggestions

Append a trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when a brainstorm or planning session produces a design worth saving, or when the user asks to save, revisit, or supersede a prior design doc.'

Swap jargon for natural phrasing users would say: 'design doc', 'save this design', 'brainstorm output', 'design history' alongside the existing terms.

Name one or two more concrete actions (e.g. 'records superseding revisions and finds prior designs for the current branch') to lift specificity and distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('design documents') and one concrete action ('Persist') plus three feature nouns ('branch tracking, revision chains, and cross-session discovery'), matching the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It is not a 4 because the capabilities are stated as features rather than several specific executable actions, and actions like superseding revisions or searching prior designs are absent.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear — 'Persist design documents with branch tracking, revision chains, and cross-session discovery' — but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines. Not a 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely implicit or underspecific.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ('design documents', 'persist') but terms like 'revision chains' and 'cross-session discovery' are internal jargon rather than natural user phrasing, and common variations users would actually say ('design doc', 'save this design', 'brainstorm output', 'supersede') are missing. Fits 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Persist design documents' carves a mostly distinct niche (design lineage/versioning) with little overlap risk against general document or file skills; only 'design documents' could brush against generic documentation skills. Fits 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than 5, whose examples pair the niche with explicit distinct trigger phrases this description lacks.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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
nyldn/claude-octopus
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.