shaping

Use this methodology when collaboratively shaping a solution with the user - iterating on problem definition (requirements) and solution options (shapes).

Quality

58%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./shaping/SKILL.md

Quality

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.

This description suffers from vague, abstract language that fails to communicate concrete capabilities. While it includes a 'Use when' structure, the actual actions and outputs remain unclear. The term 'shapes' appears to be domain-specific jargon that may not resonate with users seeking this type of collaborative problem-solving assistance.

Suggestions

Add specific concrete actions this skill performs, e.g., 'Guides structured problem decomposition, generates solution alternatives, creates requirement specifications'

Include natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'brainstorm solutions', 'define requirements', 'explore options', 'design approach'

Clarify what 'shapes' means or replace with more universally understood terminology to improve discoverability

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague, abstract language like 'collaboratively shaping a solution' and 'iterating on problem definition' without listing any concrete actions. No specific capabilities are mentioned.	1 / 3
Completeness	Has a 'Use when' clause which addresses when to use it, but the 'what' is weak and vague. The description doesn't clearly explain what concrete actions or outputs this skill produces.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant terms like 'requirements', 'solution options', and 'shapes', but these are somewhat technical/jargon-heavy. Missing natural user phrases like 'brainstorm', 'design', 'figure out', or 'plan'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Terms like 'collaboratively shaping a solution' and 'iterating' are fairly generic and could overlap with many problem-solving, design, or planning skills. 'Shapes' as a term provides some distinction but is unclear.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-structured methodology skill with excellent actionability - concrete table formats, notation systems, and examples are immediately usable. The workflow clarity is strong with explicit phase gates and validation checkpoints. The main weakness is the document length; while comprehensive, some sections could be extracted to separate reference files to improve progressive disclosure and reduce cognitive load.

Suggestions

Consider extracting the Spikes, Breadboards, and Slicing sections into separate reference files (e.g., SPIKES.md, SLICING.md) with brief summaries and links in the main skill

Remove some redundant explanations - the multi-level consistency principle appears in both the dedicated section and is restated in 'Keeping Documents in Sync'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is comprehensive but includes some redundancy (e.g., the multi-level consistency principle is stated multiple times in different ways). Some sections like 'Why This Matters' under communication could be tightened. However, most content earns its place given the complexity of the methodology.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste ready examples throughout: markdown table formats, notation conventions, spike structures, breadboard references, and complete document templates. The fit check format, parts tables, and slice documentation are all immediately usable.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear multi-step workflows with explicit validation: the document hierarchy with ripple-check requirements, phase transitions with clear gates ('You can't slice without a breadboarded shape'), and the tables→diagram flow for breadboards. The 'Whenever making a change' checklist provides explicit validation steps.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References external skills appropriately ('/breadboarding' skill) and structures content with clear headers. However, this is a long monolithic document (~400 lines) that could benefit from splitting detailed sections (Spikes, Breadboards, Slicing) into separate reference files with summaries in the main skill.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (594 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: rjs/shaping-skills
Commit: 7d8c311

Reviewed: 25 days 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.