docstring

Document a Python module and its classes using Google style

Quality

71%

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 ./.claude/skills/docstring/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

82%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-organized, highly actionable docstring-writing guide with concrete templates, worked examples, skip rules, and a closing checklist. It is held back only by minor verbosity in the style section and a step-numbering glitch with no explicit validate-fix retry loop.

Suggestions

Fix the step numbering in 'Apply documentation in this order' (it jumps from 2 to 4, missing 3).

Tighten the 'Writing Style Guidelines' section by trimming the Good/Bad pairs to one or two representative examples.

Add an explicit validate-then-fix feedback loop (e.g., re-run `/prose-review` and fix flagged items before declaring done) to strengthen the workflow.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body assumes Claude knows Python and provides task-specific format templates plus short examples; every section earns its place. Not a 5 because the Writing Style Guidelines 'Good/Bad' pairs and a few explanatory notes could be trimmed; not a 3 because padding is minor and content is largely efficient.	4 / 5
Actionability	Copy-paste-ready code templates and worked examples cover module, class, __init__, method, dataclass, enum, and deprecation cases, with explicit field/section conventions. Fully executable and concrete across the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly numbered multi-step process (identify file, read structure, apply docs in order, skip rules) plus a final checklist and a `/prose-review` validation step provide good sequencing and checkpoints. Not a 5 because the step numbering skips (1, 2, 4, 5) and there is no explicit validate-then-fix feedback loop before the checklist.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-sectioned by docstring type with no nested or buried references (only an inline `/prose-review` skill invocation, no bundle files exist). Not a 5 because everything is inline with no one-level-deep reference structure for the bulkier format examples; not a 3 because organization is clear and navigation by section header is easy.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

61%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 concise, in third person, and names a clear domain and action, but it lacks any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance, which caps its completeness and leaves its trigger surface under-specified.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to add or improve docstrings on a Python module or class.'

Expand the action list to be more comprehensive, e.g. 'add or improve module, class, and method docstrings following Google style'.

Include common synonyms like 'docstrings' and 'documentation' so the description matches natural user phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ("Python module and its classes") and a concrete action ("Document") with the Google style qualifier, but lists only one action and is not comprehensive. Not a 2 because the domain and action are concrete; not a 4 because no additional specific actions beyond a single 'document' verb.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' ("Document a Python module and its classes using Google style") but no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not a 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely implicit.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms a user would say are present ("Python module", "classes", "Google style") but common synonyms like "docstrings" and "documentation" are missing. Not a 5 because synonyms/extensions are not comprehensive; not a 3 because the keyword coverage is solid and directly matches user phrasing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Python module and its classes using Google style" carves a distinct niche (Python Google-style docstrings) with minimal overlap risk against other skills. Not a 5 because the phrasing lacks concrete trigger phrases that fully disambiguate; not a 3 because it is clearly specific to Python docstring work.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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: pipecat-ai/pipecat
Path: .claude/skills/docstring/SKILL.md
Commit: 6659b78

Reviewed: 1 day 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.