desc-1024

Boundary description with a multibyte glyph aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa😀

Quality

11%

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 ./crates/skill-validator-rs/tests/golden-corpus/fixtures/boundary/desc-1024/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

22%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 a minimal placeholder: a meaningless header and the sentence "Use the tool.". While it wastes almost no tokens, it provides no actionable guidance, no workflow, and no meaningful organization — it fails as instruction despite being terse.

Suggestions

Replace "Use the tool." with concrete, executable guidance: name the specific tool/command and show a copy-paste-ready example covering the common case.

Give the body a purposeful structure — replace the placeholder "# Body" header with section titles that reflect the skill's actual task (e.g. a quick-start section), which would also raise progressive disclosure.

If the skill involves any multi-step or risky operation, add an explicit step sequence with a validation checkpoint; otherwise state the single action unambiguously so the simple-skill exception can apply.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is only three lines with no padding or explanations of known concepts, but the single sentence "Use the tool." is vacuous — it conveys nothing, so its tokens do not earn their place. This sits between lean/efficient (4-5) and padded (2); anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation") is the closest fit.	3 / 5
Actionability	"Use the tool." is entirely vague: no concrete code, no commands, no named tool, and no described steps — it gestures rather than instructs. It matches anchor 1 ("Entirely vague or abstract; no concrete code or commands") and not anchor 2, which requires at least high-level hints toward specific steps.	1 / 5
Workflow Clarity	No sequence of steps exists at all — just one ambiguous imperative referring to an unspecified "tool". The simple-skill exception (score 5 for a single unambiguous action) does not apply because the action is ambiguous; anchor 1 ("Steps missing or incoherent") is the best fit rather than anchor 2, which requires a rough sequence to be present.	1 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the body is under 50 lines, so no external references are needed — but the only structure is a placeholder header "# Body" that signals nothing and the content is not organized. This lands at anchor 3: some structure exists, but it is not well-organized enough for the simple-skill score of 5, and there is no inlined content or buried referencing that would justify anchor 2.	3 / 5
	Total	8 / 20 Passed

Description

0%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.

This description is a boundary-case test artifact: a meta label followed by roughly a thousand filler characters and a multibyte emoji. It communicates no capability, no trigger terms, and no use conditions, scoring the minimum on every dimension.

Suggestions

Replace the filler with a concrete capability statement naming the domain and 2-3 specific actions, e.g. "Extract text and tables from X files, fill forms, merge documents".

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases and file extensions users would actually say, which is required for completeness to exceed 3.

Trim the description to a few informative sentences; the ~1000-character 'a' padding and emoji add tokens without adding any distinguishing signal.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions at all — only the meta phrase "Boundary description with a multibyte glyph" followed by ~1000 filler 'a' characters and an emoji. It names no domain and no actions, so it cannot reach anchor 2 ("Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic").	1 / 5
Completeness	Neither "what does this do" nor "when should Claude use it" is present in any form; the description is padding. It fits anchor 1 ("Missing both what and when") rather than anchor 2, which requires at least a vague 'what' or a 'when' clause.	1 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	There are no natural keywords or phrases a user would say; the text is exclusively filler characters ("aaaa...aaa😀") plus a meta label. This matches anchor 1 ("No natural keywords; only technical jargon or entirely generic language") and clearly not anchor 2, which requires at least one or two generic keywords.	1 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description conveys nothing that distinguishes it from any other skill — it is entirely generic filler ("Boundary description with a multibyte glyph" + 'a' padding), matching anchor 1. It does not reach anchor 2, which still implies a recognizable breadth of scope.	1 / 5
	Total	4 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: pantheon-org/tekhne
Path: crates/skill-validator-rs/tests/golden-corpus/fixtures/boundary/desc-1024/SKILL.md
Commit: a1083f4

Reviewed: 3 hours 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.