CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

valid-skill

A well-formed example skill for testing the validator.

39

Quality

38%

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 ./crates/skill-validator-rs/tests/golden-corpus/fixtures/testdata/valid-skill/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

47%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 well-structured, appropriately brief overview that correctly uses one-level-deep references to real bundle files. However, it contains almost no actionable content itself — the guidance is entirely 'go read the other files' — and includes meta filler sentences about validation and structure. As a working skill it would leave the agent without concrete steps in the main file.

Suggestions

Remove the meta-commentary sentences ("should pass all validation checks", "demonstrates proper structure") that add no guidance value.

Add a minimal inline quick-start (e.g., the actual command(s) to run or first steps) so the skill is actionable without immediately deferring to reference files.

Label each reference with what it contains (e.g., '**Setup steps**: See [guide.md](references/guide.md)) so navigation is self-describing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and not padded with background explanation, but "This is a valid skill that should pass all validation checks" and "This skill demonstrates proper structure and frontmatter" are meta-commentary that earns no place in a working skill, matching anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation').

3 / 5

Actionability

It points to real, concrete resources — "run scripts/setup.sh", the reference guide link, and the asset template link — but provides no actual steps, commands with arguments, or examples inline, matching anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete') rather than anchor 4's mostly-executable guidance.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Usage section implies a rough order (read guide, use template, run setup) but the steps are poorly defined with no explanation of what each does or any checkpoints, matching anchor 2 ('rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined'); the simple-skill exception does not apply because the intended action is not unambiguous, and no destructive/batch cap is triggered.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All three referenced bundle files (references/guide.md, assets/template.md, scripts/setup.sh) exist, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled with markdown links from a short, sectioned overview — good structure matching anchor 4. It falls short of anchor 5 because the reference labels are generic and do not tell the reader what content each file contains.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

28%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 reads as a placeholder: it explains the skill's role as a test fixture rather than describing what it does or when to use it. It lacks any concrete capability, trigger phrase, or 'Use when' clause. A user or model could not reliably select this skill from a list based on this text.

Suggestions

Replace the meta-purpose text with a concrete statement of what the skill does when invoked (e.g., specific actions it performs).

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases a user would actually say.

Include natural keywords and synonyms for the skill's domain so it is discoverable and distinguishable from other validation/testing skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"A well-formed example skill for testing the validator" names its domain (validator testing) but lists no concrete actions or capabilities, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is above anchor 1 because a purpose is explicitly stated, but below anchor 3 because no concrete actions are enumerated.

2 / 5

Completeness

It states a vague meta-level 'what' ("for testing the validator") with no 'when' clause at all, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 3; it lands at 2 because the 'what' does not describe any capability the skill performs, unlike anchor 3's clear, concrete 'what'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The only keywords are "example", "testing", and "validator" — one or two generic terms with no natural phrases a user would say when needing this skill, matching anchor 2 rather than anchor 3 (which requires several relevant domain keywords).

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"testing the validator" is a somewhat specific niche, so it is distinguishable from typical capability-based skills, but the phrasing is generic enough ("example skill") that it could overlap with other test/validation skills, matching anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'mostly distinct' with concrete triggers.

3 / 5

Total

9

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

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

Warning

Total

15

/

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.