CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

write-plan

Discuss a feature, draft an implementation plan, and review it through isolated passes

Quality

76%

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 ./.claude/skills/write-plan/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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.

An extremely lean delegation wrapper: one unambiguous instruction pointing to a shared skill, with no wasted tokens and a clean single-level reference. The only structural weakness is that all substance — the actual discuss/draft/review workflow — lives outside the file at a path the bundle does not verify.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a single directive plus a provenance comment — "Load and follow the shared skill at ~/.agents/skills/write-plan/SKILL.md" — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Matches the score-5 anchor (lean, every token earns its place); there is nothing to trim.

5 / 5

Actionability

The one instruction is concrete and executable, pointing to a specific path, matching the mostly-executable anchor. Not 5 because there is no fallback if the shared skill is absent and no commands covering common cases; not 3 because the guidance given is specific and complete as far as it goes.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a single-action skill whose one step — load and follow the shared skill at an explicit path — is unambiguous, which the simple-skill guideline scores at 5. No destructive or batch operations are present, so the validation-cap rule does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The single reference is one level deep and clearly stated, and the file is appropriately minimal rather than inlining content (no bundle files exist to organize). Not 5 because the reference points outside the bundle to ~/.agents/ with no overview of what the target contains, leaving navigation dependent on an unverifiable path; not 3 because the structure that exists is clean and well-signaled.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

55%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 clearly states what the skill does across its three-phase workflow, but provides no guidance on when to invoke it and has thin natural-keyword coverage. Its distinctiveness is decent though weakened by the generic "Discuss a feature" opening.

Suggestions

Add a "Use when..." clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. "Use when the user asks to plan a feature, write an implementation plan or spec, or review a plan before coding" — this would raise both completeness and trigger_term_quality.

Include natural synonyms users would actually say — "spec", "design a feature", "planning document" — to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Sharpen the generic "Discuss a feature" opening into more distinctive language (e.g. "Draft implementation plans from feature discussions") to reduce overlap with brainstorming/requirements skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists three concrete actions — "Discuss a feature", "draft an implementation plan", "review it through isolated passes" — matching the score-4 anchor of several specific actions with minor gaps. Not 5 because "discuss a feature" is generic and what the review passes involve is left unstated; not 3 because three distinct concrete actions are explicitly named.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (discuss, draft a plan, review it) but the "when" is entirely absent, and the guideline caps completeness at 3 for a missing "Use when..." clause. Not 2 because the "what" is concrete rather than vague; not 4 because there is no trigger guidance at all.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant natural terms ("feature", "implementation plan", "review") but no synonyms or common variations ("spec", "design", "planning"), matching the anchor for some relevant keywords with missing variations. Not 4 because keyword coverage is thin and no trigger phrasing surfaces these terms.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"implementation plan" and "isolated passes" give the skill a recognizable niche, but the broad opening "Discuss a feature" could overlap with brainstorming or requirements-gathering skills. Matches anchor 3 (somewhat specific but could still overlap); not 4 because the generic opening invites conflict with adjacent planning skills.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

phatblat/dotfiles

Path

.claude/skills/write-plan/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.