skill-beta

A minimal valid skill.

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/testdata/multi-skill/skill-beta/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 stub with no instructional value: it describes itself in one sentence and provides no actions, steps, or referenceable detail. Its only virtue is brevity, but that brevity is vacuous rather than efficient. The skill needs actual task guidance — concrete instructions or executable examples — to function.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance for the skill's actual task: specific commands, code, or step-by-step instructions instead of the self-describing sentence (fixes actionability).

If the task is multi-step, lay out a numbered sequence with explicit validation checkpoints; if single-step, state the one action unambiguously (fixes workflow_clarity).

State the skill's purpose in a lean overview so the body's tokens carry information Claude doesn't already have (fixes conciseness).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body ('A minimal skill with just the required fields.') contains zero padding or over-explanation, but it also conveys nothing Claude doesn't already know — the tokens don't earn their place as the anchor-5 example requires. It is not verbose enough to score below 3; there is simply no content to tighten.	3 / 5
Actionability	The body only describes the skill ('A minimal skill with just the required fields') rather than instructing; there is no code, command, or concrete step of any kind. This matches the anchor 'Entirely vague or abstract; no concrete code or commands; only describes rather than instructs'.	1 / 5
Workflow Clarity	No steps or sequence are present at all — 'Steps missing or incoherent; no sequence'. The simple-skill exception (single unambiguous action can score 5) does not apply because the body never states any action to perform.	1 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	There are no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and no references are made, so nothing is buried or nested; the single heading is minimally organized. However the body offers no real overview or navigable structure, leaving it at 'some structure but could be better organized'.	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.

The description is a placeholder that fails on every dimension: it states no capability, no trigger context, and no distinct identity. It closely resembles the rubric's bad example 'Helps with documents' but is even further from useful. It needs a full rewrite stating concrete actions and an explicit 'Use when...' clause.

Suggestions

Replace 'A minimal valid skill.' with concrete third-person actions naming the domain, e.g. 'Extracts text from X, fills Y, merges Z' (fixes specificity).

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when the user mentions <natural keywords, file extensions, and synonyms>' (fixes completeness and trigger_term_quality).

Include distinguishing keywords or file formats that set this skill apart from similar ones, reducing conflict risk (fixes distinctiveness_conflict_risk).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description 'A minimal valid skill.' names no domain and no actions — it is pure abstract meta-commentary about the skill itself, matching the anchor 'Entirely vague; no concrete actions; pure abstract language'. It cannot score 2 because that anchor requires at least naming a domain.	1 / 5
Completeness	Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered; the sentence describes the skill's size, not its function. The missing 'Use when...' clause also caps completeness at 3, but the absence of a 'what' places it at the bottom anchor.	1 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	There are no keywords whatsoever — neither natural phrases a user would say nor technical terms. This matches the anchor 'No natural keywords; only technical jargon or entirely generic language' and is strictly below the 'one or two generic keywords' bar of anchor 2.	1 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'A minimal valid skill.' is entirely generic and indistinguishable from virtually any other skill, so it would trigger incorrectly for anything. Anchor 2 ('very broad; high overlap risk') requires at least a broad domain hint, which is absent.	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/testdata/multi-skill/skill-beta/SKILL.md
Commit: a1083f4

Reviewed: 4 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.