CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

design-debate

Stress-test an unwritten idea or decision by spawning independent subagents in genuinely OPPOSING roles (advocate, skeptic, migration/risk) rather than complementary review lenses — grounded in real repo investigation, not assumption, and concluding in a synthesized verdict rather than a list of opinions. Use for "should we do X", "what are the pros and cons", "I need pushback", "collegial review", "second opinion on this decision" — BEFORE a plan exists. NOT for reviewing an already-written plan file (use plan-review) and NOT for refining a vague question through dialogue with the user (use socratic-method).

72

Quality

90%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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 delivers a crisp nine-step workflow with concrete commands, explicit verdict states, validation with feedback loops, and a well-organized one-level-deep bundle. Weaknesses are minor: some statements are stated twice (grounding rationale, parallel-spawn rationale, revisit-trigger rule), the parallel spawn mechanics are shown only as comments, and one referenced validation script is missing from the bundle.

Suggestions

Add the missing scripts/validate-context-frontmatter.sh referenced in Step 8, or point to wherever that validator actually lives — a dangling script path breaks navigation and execution at the record-outcome step.

Show one concrete parallel-spawn example in Step 6 (e.g., a representative Agent call with the brief plus role instruction) instead of comment-only placeholders, so the core mechanic is executable rather than implied.

Trim the verbatim duplication between the workflow steps and the Anti-Patterns section (the grounding rationale, revisit-trigger rule, and parallel-spawn rationale each appear twice) and tighten Step 8's justificational asides.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but it repeats itself: "an ungrounded debate produces confident conclusions built on guessed facts" appears verbatim in both Step 2 and Anti-Patterns, "Never spawn sequentially — that triples wall-clock time for no benefit" restates the immediately preceding sentence, and Step 8 carries rhetorical padding ("RECOMMENDED is not the same as done"). Anchor 4 (efficient with minor trimming possible) fits better than 5, but the duplication is structural reinforcement rather than the noticeable padding of anchor 3.

4 / 5

Actionability

Gives copy-paste commands ("wc -l path/to/thing/in/question", "grep -rl \"the/consumer/pattern\" . | wc -l", "./scripts/validate-debate-verdict.sh path/to/verdict.yaml" with expected success and error output), but Step 6's code blocks are comment-only pseudocode ("# single message, N parallel Agent/Task calls") and Step 3's identical brief has no inline template. Mostly executable with minor gaps — anchor 4, not 5, because the core spawn mechanics are not shown concretely.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Nine explicitly sequenced steps with a concrete verdict enum ("proceed, do_not_proceed_for_now, or proceed_with_modification"), an explicit validation checkpoint showing both the success output ("OK: 1 file(s) validated") and the failure output, and a Troubleshooting table for recovery paths. This matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'; no validation gaps pull it to 4.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-split bundle with clearly signaled one-level-deep references — role table in references/role-design.md, worked example in references/worked-example.md (both verified to exist, neither nests further references), template and schema in assets/ — each listed in a table with a 'When to Use' column. However Step 8 references "./scripts/validate-context-frontmatter.sh", which does not exist in scripts/ (only validate-debate-verdict.sh is present), a dangling reference. Anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps) rather than 5 because of the broken script path.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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 a model example: it names concrete opposing roles, states the grounding and synthesis mechanics, gives multiple natural trigger phrases, and draws explicit boundaries against the two skills most likely to be confused with it. Every clause is load-bearing despite the length. No changes needed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "spawning independent subagents in genuinely OPPOSING roles (advocate, skeptic, migration/risk)", "grounded in real repo investigation, not assumption", and "concluding in a synthesized verdict rather than a list of opinions". Anchor 5 fits: the actions are specific and comprehensively cover what the skill does; anchor 4's 'minor gaps in coverage' does not apply.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (stress-test via opposing subagents grounded in repo facts, ending in a synthesized verdict) and when ("Use for ... BEFORE a plan exists" with concrete trigger phrases, plus negative boundaries). The explicit 'Use for' clause with trigger phrases matches anchor 5, not the 3-cap for missing trigger guidance.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Provides natural user phrasings with synonym coverage: "should we do X", "what are the pros and cons", "I need pushback", "collegial review", "second opinion on this decision". These are exactly what a user would say when needing this skill; not anchor 4 since no commonly-said variant is conspicuously missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicitly disambiguates from the two nearest skills: "NOT for reviewing an already-written plan file (use plan-review)" and "NOT for refining a vague question through dialogue with the user (use socratic-method)". This is a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5 rather than anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk'.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 4 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
pantheon-org/tekhne
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.