CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

reports-pdfs-and-slide-automation

Lay out and export data-rich reports and documents. Use when the user needs report structure, figure packaging, PDFs, PowerPoint or Google Slides automation, or programmatic insertion of visualizations, UML-like diagrams, or architecture diagrams into documents.

60

Quality

71%

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 ./plugins/build-web-data-visualization/skills/reports-pdfs-and-slide-automation/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%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 body is well-structured with a clear overview, concrete tooling guidance, and a real one-level-deep reference bundle, but it leans on unexplained process jargon and lacks executable examples or explicit validation feedback loops for its batch/document workflows.

Suggestions

Add a concrete code snippet or two (e.g. a minimal Playwright HTML-to-PDF render, or a pptxgenjs slide with a placed image) so the body is executable, not just tool-name-level.

Introduce an explicit validate->fix->retry checkpoint in the figure packaging / composition workflow (e.g. validate rendered output before final export).

Trim or briefly define the proprietary jargon ('specialist owner', 'mini-brief', 'fresh-pass status', 'visual design contract') in the Figure Packaging Rules and Output Expectations sections to reduce abstract padding.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Tooling sections (PDF/slide/embedding approaches) are tight, but the Figure Packaging Rules and Output Expectations sections are padded with unexplained jargon like 'specialist owner', 'mini-brief', 'fresh-pass status', and 'visual design contract' that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Names concrete libraries and patterns (pptxgenjs, pdf-lib, PDFKit, jsPDF, Playwright/Puppeteer, Google Slides API, SVG/PNG/PDF exports) but provides no executable code; key implementation detail is deferred to references.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A 12-step Figure Packaging sequence exists with an explicit user-approval gate (step 3), but there is no validate->fix->retry feedback loop for these batch/document operations, capping the score at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; all four ./references/ files are real and listed in the References section, with external foundations references signaled in prose — minor inline-density gaps remain.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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 is specific, third-person, and explicitly pairs a clear 'what' with a concrete 'Use when' trigger clause covering the main deliverable types. It would benefit from adding file extensions and synonyms (slides, decks) to round out trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Lay out and export data-rich reports and documents', 'figure packaging', 'PowerPoint or Google Slides automation', 'programmatic insertion of visualizations, UML-like diagrams, or architecture diagrams into documents' — giving comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('Lay out and export data-rich reports and documents') and when ('Use when the user needs report structure, figure packaging, PDFs, PowerPoint or Google Slides automation...').

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural terms ('PDFs', 'PowerPoint', 'Google Slides', 'visualizations', 'diagrams') but missing file extensions and common synonyms like .pdf, .pptx, 'slides', 'decks'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (composed deliverables rather than standalone charts) with distinct triggers, but minor overlap risk with generic charting/visualization skills and the UML visualization skill.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
openai/plugins
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.