offer-comparison-analyzer
Compare multiple job offers side-by-side with total compensation analysis
37
33%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/offer-comparison-analyzer/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
40%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 identifies a clear niche (job offer comparison with compensation analysis) that is distinctive, but it lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') and could benefit from more specific capability listing and natural keyword variations. The 'what' is moderately defined but the 'when' is entirely absent.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'comparing offers', 'which job should I take', 'salary negotiation', 'total comp', or 'evaluate job offer'.
List more specific capabilities such as 'equity/RSU valuation, benefits comparison, cost-of-living adjustment, tax impact estimation' to improve specificity.
Include common keyword variations users might say: 'salary comparison', 'TC', 'stock options', 'offer letter', 'compensation package'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (job offers) and two actions (compare side-by-side, total compensation analysis), but doesn't list more granular capabilities like equity valuation, benefits comparison, tax implications, or negotiation guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and since the 'what' is also only moderate, this scores at 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural terms like 'job offers', 'compensation', and 'compare', which users might say. However, it misses common variations like 'salary comparison', 'offer negotiation', 'stock options', 'RSU', 'benefits', or 'TC'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'job offers', 'side-by-side comparison', and 'total compensation analysis' creates a clear, specific niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a comprehensive but bloated reference document that reads more like a career advice blog post than a concise instruction set for Claude. Its strengths are the concrete calculation templates and side-by-side comparison format, but these are buried in excessive explanatory content, generic advice, and self-reflection prompts that Claude doesn't need. The skill would be significantly improved by cutting 60-70% of the content and focusing on the templates and calculation methodology.
Suggestions
Remove sections Claude already knows: 'The Comparison Challenge', 'Questions to Ask Yourself', 'Red Flags to Watch' — these are generic career advice that don't add actionable skill-specific value.
Split into SKILL.md (overview + quick calculation template + output format) and separate reference files for detailed scoring frameworks, red flags, and non-monetary evaluation criteria.
Add a clear sequential workflow: 1) Gather offer data → 2) Calculate total comp → 3) Score non-monetary factors → 4) Apply weights → 5) Validate with user → 6) Present recommendation.
Cut the 'Core Capabilities' and 'When to Use' bullet lists significantly — these duplicate information and explain obvious triggers.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~300+ lines. Explains concepts Claude already knows well (what makes comparing offers hard, gut check questions, Monday morning test). Sections like 'The Comparison Challenge' and 'Questions to Ask Yourself' are generic career advice that add no actionable value. The red flags lists and self-reflection questions are common knowledge that waste tokens. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete templates and calculation examples which are useful, but much of the content is descriptive rather than instructive. The templates are fill-in-the-blank rather than executable code/commands. The weighted decision matrix walkthrough is a good concrete example, but the skill overall leans toward listing considerations rather than giving precise instructions. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The weighted decision matrix has a clear 3-step process, and the output format provides structure. However, there's no explicit validation or verification step — no guidance on confirming data accuracy, checking assumptions about equity valuations, or validating that all components have been captured before presenting results. The overall flow between sections is more of a reference dump than a guided workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no bundle files. All content is inline regardless of depth — the red flags lists, self-reflection questions, detailed calculation templates, and scoring frameworks could all be separated. The skill would benefit enormously from splitting into overview + detailed reference files. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- paramchoudhary/resumeskills
- Commit
24c6edc
- 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.