conductor-new-track

Create a new track with specification and phased implementation plan

Quality

64%

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 ./skills/conductor-new-track/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced workflow with concrete templates and user-review checkpoints. Its main weakness is generic boilerplate sections that add tokens without value, and inlined templates that could optionally live in reference files.

Suggestions

Remove or tighten the generic 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' / 'Instructions' boilerplate, which restates what the description already conveys.

Consider moving the large spec.md, plan.md, and metadata.json templates into a references/ file to slim SKILL.md into an overview, with clearly signaled links.

Strengthen the error-handling section with an explicit rollback/recovery loop (detect failure → clean up partial track → re-validate) to push workflow clarity higher.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The bulk is tight, actionable templates and prompts, but the generic 'Use this skill when', 'Do not use this skill when', and 'Instructions' sections are filler that could be trimmed; mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides copy-paste-ready markdown/JSON templates, exact file paths, exact interactive question prompts, and concrete formats (track ID, tracks.md row) covering the common cases — fully executable guidance.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequenced workflow (pre-flight → classify → spec → review → plan → review → create) with explicit user-review checkpoints, a track-ID uniqueness check, and an error-handling section; minor validation gaps in the file-write recovery flow keep it just below 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clearly headed sections with no external bundle files (references/scripts/assets are empty) and content that genuinely belongs together; the large inlined templates could arguably be split into reference files, a minor organization gap.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 and states a clear 'what', but lacks any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which limits its discoverability. Keywords are relevant but lack synonyms or natural variations.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause stating concrete trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when starting a new feature, bug fix, chore, or refactor track in Conductor.'

Include natural synonyms users might say (e.g. 'new feature', 'start a task', 'implementation plan') to improve trigger coverage.

Make the actions more concrete by naming the artifacts produced (e.g. 'generates spec.md and a phased plan.md').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('new track') and two concrete actions ('specification' and 'phased implementation plan'), but the actions are somewhat abstract and not comprehensive — matches the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does ('Create a new track with specification and phased implementation plan') but has no 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the rubric guidance completeness is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant keywords ('new track', 'specification', 'implementation plan') are present and natural within the Conductor context, but common variations or synonyms are missing.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'New track' with specification and phased plan is a fairly distinct Conductor-specific niche with only minor overlap risk against related planning skills.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 3 missing, 2 suspicious	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/conductor-new-track/SKILL.md
Commit: 3eff4af

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.