CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

pin

Pin session decisions, questions, objections, scope constraints, and corrections to a persistent board that survives context compaction. Use PROACTIVELY when: (1) user approves/rejects a recommendation, (2) user asks a clarifying question about a proposal, (3) user states a scope constraint, (4) user corrects a misunderstanding. Also use when user says pin, track this, mark as approved, board, show pins. Auto-invoke without user asking whenever a decision, question, or constraint is detected.

Quality

84%

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.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced skill body with exact schemas, commands, responses, and validation checkpoints for every operation, backed by well-signaled one-level-deep reference files. Its main weakness is redundancy — the same rules are restated across Auto-Invoke Rules, When (Not) to Use, Limits, Key Behaviors, Anti-Patterns, and the edge-cases reference — which inflates token cost without adding information.

Suggestions

Consolidate the duplicate rules: state the duplicate check, limits, and emoji-parsing gotcha once (e.g. in the Pin procedure and references/edge-cases.md only) and cut their restatements in Limits, Key Behaviors, and the Anti-Patterns.

Merge "Do NOT pin" and "When Not to Use" into a single section, and trim the nine anti-patterns to the 3-4 that aren't already covered elsewhere, or move the full list to a reference file.

Drop or compress the Philosophy and External reading sections — the capture-tool principle is already enforced by the Key Behaviors, and the ADR/cognitive-offloading links don't change how the model executes the commands.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Everything is actionable with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the same rules are stated three or four times — the duplicate check and limits appear in the Pin procedure, the Limits section, Key Behaviors, an anti-pattern, and references/edge-cases.md; "Do NOT pin", "When Not to Use", and the nine anti-patterns overlap heavily; the emoji-parsing gotcha is given twice. Mostly efficient, but several padded/redundant sections could be consolidated.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: a copy-paste bash snippet for deriving PINS_FILE, the exact pins.json schema, per-command numbered procedures, exact response strings (e.g. `⚠️ Already pinned.`, `🗑️ Triage cleared. <N> pins remaining.`), and the emoji/type mapping — specific and covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Each command has a clear numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery responses: duplicate check and per-type limit check before any write, id lookup with a not-found response before removal, empty-board handling for show, and next_id monotonicity after deletions — matching the top anchor's sequence-plus-validation pattern.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Two references (inspecting-the-board.md, edge-cases.md) are real, one level deep, and clearly signaled in a table with a "When to Use" column, and the split (core procedures inline, read-only checks and edge cases external) is appropriate. However, the ~80-line Anti-Patterns section and the External reading links are inline content that could be split or trimmed, leaving minor organization gaps.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 strong description that clearly states what the skill does and gives explicit, enumerated auto-invoke triggers plus natural user phrases. Trigger coverage is good rather than comprehensive, and broad phrases like "track this" create minor overlap risk with related tracking skills.

Suggestions

Add a few more natural trigger synonyms such as "remember this decision", "don't forget", or "note that constraint" to push trigger coverage toward comprehensive.

Briefly mention the board-management verbs (show, remove, clear) in the what-clause so the action set reads as more than a single pin operation.

Sharpen the tracking trigger (e.g. "says pin, board, or show pins") to reduce overlap with generic task-tracking or memory skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain and concrete item types ("session decisions, questions, objections, scope constraints, and corrections") plus the persistence mechanism ("a persistent board that survives context compaction"), but the action set is essentially one verb — pin — with show/rm/clear only hinted at via trigger phrases, so it falls between the several-actions (4) and comprehensive (5) anchors.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Pin session decisions, questions, objections, scope constraints, and corrections to a persistent board that survives context compaction") and when ("Use PROACTIVELY when: (1) user approves/rejects... (4) user corrects a misunderstanding. Also use when user says pin, track this, mark as approved, board, show pins") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present ("pin, track this, mark as approved, board, show pins") alongside four concrete behavioral triggers, but a few natural variants (e.g. "remember this", "don't forget", "decision log") are missing, placing it just below comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The session-decision-board niche is distinct with dedicated triggers, but phrases like "track this" and "mark as approved" carry minor overlap risk with task-tracking and memory skills, so it sits between mostly distinct (4) and minimal-conflict (5).

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

pantheon-org/tekhne

Path

skills/agentic-harness/pin/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.