CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

writing-plans

Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code

Quality

68%

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 ./.agents/skills/writing-plans/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.

The content is an exemplar of actionable instruction writing: concrete templates, exact commands, explicit anti-patterns, and a built-in self-review loop. Only minor tightening (repeated principles, a few rationale sentences) and a marginal structure decision (inline templates vs. a separate reference) keep it from full marks.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative guidance with minor trimmable instances: "You reason best about code you can hold in context at once", "DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits" repeated in both Overview and Remember, and the extended Conventional Docs commit-convention explanation.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable for an instruction-only skill: a copy-paste plan header template, a complete task template with real test/implementation code blocks and exact commands ("pytest tests/path/test.py::test_name -v", "git commit -m \"docs: add implementation plan\" -- PLAN.md"), and an explicit placeholder blacklist with examples.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The skill's own workflow is clearly sequenced (announce → scope check → file structure → tasks → self-review → execution handoff) with explicit validation checkpoints: the Self-Review checklist (spec coverage, placeholder scan, type consistency), fail/pass verification with expected output embedded in the task template ("Expected: FAIL with \"function not defined\""), and a fix-and-move-on feedback loop.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so everything lives in one well-sectioned file with clear headers, no buried references, and no nested lookups (mentions of executing-plans/subagent-driven-development are skill pointers, not bundle references). Good structure and appropriate placement, though the skill exceeds 50 lines and could arguably split the plan templates into a reference file.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

31%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 trigger-focused but one-sided: it tells Claude when to activate and nothing about what the skill does. It also uses second person and omits the skill's most natural trigger terms ("plan", "implementation plan"), making it vague relative to its own content, which is highly specific.

Suggestions

Add a 'what' clause stating the concrete capability in third person, e.g. "Writes comprehensive, bite-sized implementation plans from a spec... Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code."

Include the natural trigger terms users would say — "plan", "implementation plan", "planning" — since the skill's own name is writing-plans but "plan" never appears in the description.

Sharpen the trigger to distinguish this skill from execution-phase siblings, e.g. "Use when planning work before implementation; for executing an existing plan, use executing-plans."

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("spec or requirements for a multi-step task, before touching code") but states no concrete actions whatsoever — it never says the skill writes implementation plans. Base level 2, reduced by 1 per the rubric guideline because it uses second person ("Use when you have...").

1 / 5

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present ("Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task"); the 'what' is entirely missing — the description never states that the skill writes comprehensive, bite-sized implementation plans.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant natural terms ("spec", "requirements", "multi-step task") but misses the most common phrasings users would actually say — "plan", "planning", "implementation plan" — which are absent despite being the skill's own name.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger "multi-step task... before touching code" is somewhat specific but would fire for nearly any multi-step coding request and does not distinguish this skill from closely related sibling skills it references (executing-plans, subagent-driven-development).

3 / 5

Total

9

/

20

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

phatblat/dotfiles

Path

.agents/skills/writing-plans/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.