orchestrate
Wire Commands, Agents, and Skills together for complex features. Use when building features that need research, planning, and implementation phases.
61
51%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/orchestrate/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
67%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 provides a reasonable structure with both 'what' and 'when' clauses, which is good for completeness. However, it relies on internal jargon ('Commands, Agents, Skills') that users may not naturally use, and the actions described are high-level rather than concrete. The broad trigger terms like 'research, planning, and implementation' create overlap risk with other skills.
Suggestions
Add more concrete actions such as 'create multi-step workflows', 'chain agent outputs into implementation tasks', or 'orchestrate research-to-code pipelines' to improve specificity.
Include natural user-facing trigger terms like 'multi-step workflow', 'orchestrate', 'end-to-end feature', 'complex task pipeline' alongside the internal terminology to improve trigger term quality.
Narrow the 'Use when' clause to reduce conflict risk — e.g., 'Use when the user needs to coordinate multiple agents or chain research, planning, and coding steps into a single workflow' rather than the broad 'building features that need research, planning, and implementation phases'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names a domain ('Wire Commands, Agents, and Skills together') and mentions some actions ('research, planning, and implementation phases'), but the actions are high-level and not concrete. It doesn't list specific operations like 'create workflow pipelines', 'chain agent outputs', or similar. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | It answers both 'what' ('Wire Commands, Agents, and Skills together for complex features') and 'when' ('Use when building features that need research, planning, and implementation phases') with an explicit 'Use when...' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Terms like 'Commands', 'Agents', 'Skills', 'research', 'planning', 'implementation' are somewhat relevant but are internal/technical jargon. A user is unlikely to say 'wire commands and agents together' — they'd more likely say 'build a multi-step workflow', 'orchestrate tasks', or 'complex feature development'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is somewhat specific to orchestration/wiring of components, but terms like 'complex features', 'research', 'planning', and 'implementation' are broad enough to overlap with general project management, coding, or planning skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a useful conceptual framework for multi-phase feature development but lacks the concrete, actionable detail needed to be truly executable. It describes what to do at a high level but never shows how—no command syntax, no configuration examples, no actual agent invocation patterns. The references to other systems (Pro-Workflow, hooks, agents) are unexplained and unlinked.
Suggestions
Add concrete examples of how to invoke each agent (e.g., actual command syntax or tool calls for delegating to scout/orchestrator/reviewer agents)
Define what a 'quality gate' checks specifically—provide a checklist or validation command that runs every 5 edits
Show a concrete example of the confidence scoring mechanism (e.g., what constitutes 70% confidence, how it's measured or reported)
Link to documentation for referenced concepts like Pro-Workflow, self-correction loop, and hooks, or inline brief definitions
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but includes some redundancy. The 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections are helpful but could be more compact. The ASCII diagram is a nice touch but the content overall could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill is almost entirely abstract and descriptive. There are no concrete commands, executable code, configuration examples, or specific agent invocation syntax. Phrases like 'delegate to the orchestrator agent' and 'run the reviewer agent' give no actionable detail on how to actually do these things. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The phases are clearly sequenced and there are validation gates mentioned (confidence score, approval, quality gates every 5 edits). However, the validation steps are vague—there's no concrete definition of what a 'quality gate' checks, how to measure confidence, or what the GO/HOLD decision actually entails. Missing feedback loops for error recovery. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is reasonably structured with clear sections and a table for agent selection. However, it references agents (scout, orchestrator, reviewer, debugger) and concepts (Pro-Workflow, self-correction loop, hooks) without linking to any documentation or configuration files where these are defined. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- rohitg00/pro-workflow
- Commit
9df6af8
- 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.