CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comet-any

Create or upgrade a Comet Classic workflow Skill via Comet Creator. Not for general Skill authoring, cleanup, or review.

56

Quality

62%

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 ./assets/skills/comet-any/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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 dense, actionable, and well-sequenced with concrete commands and validation gates, but its referenced files are missing from the bundle, which limits progressive disclosure effectiveness.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced files under `comet-any/reference/` (authoring-protocol.json, bundle-authoring.md, authoring-subagents.md, eval-provider.md, authored-zone-example.md) so the References links resolve.

Spell out the fix-and-retry recovery loop in the Validate/Review steps (e.g. "if eval fails: revise the draft, re-record evidence, re-validate") to reach a 5 on workflow clarity.

Tighten the longest compound sentences in the Core Model and Steps sections to lift conciseness toward a 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes domain competence without explaining what Comet/Comet Creator is, fitting the efficient anchor; a few long compound sentences could be trimmed, so it is not quite the lean 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete CLI commands appear throughout (e.g. `comet creator init <name> --file <plan.json> --confirmed-proposal --json`) plus a full JSON plan example, matching the mostly-executable anchor; placeholder args keep it just short of copy-paste-ready 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Ten numbered steps give a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (step 8 eval gates, step 9 readiness review, step 10 human-approval gate); recovery fix-and-retry loops are less spelled out than the anchor-5 example, so it sits at 4.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned (Core Model, Protected Boundary, Steps, Plan Example, Hard Rules, References) with clearly signaled one-level-deep references, but the referenced files (e.g. `comet-any/reference/bundle-authoring.md`) do not exist in the bundle, so the structure is only partially effective.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

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 specific and well-scoped with a clear negative boundary, but it lacks a positive "Use when..." trigger clause and broad natural keyword coverage, capping completeness and trigger quality at 3.

Suggestions

Add an explicit positive trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user wants to create or upgrade a Comet Classic workflow Skill via Comet Creator."

Include natural user-facing variations and synonyms (e.g. "Comet Skill", "workflow Skill bundle", "comet-classic") to broaden trigger term coverage.

Keep the negative boundary but pair it with concrete positive triggers so the "when" is explicit rather than only implied by exclusion.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("Comet Classic workflow Skill") and two concrete actions ("Create or upgrade") plus the tool ("Comet Creator"), matching the anchor for domain plus 1-2 concrete actions; it is not comprehensive enough for a 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

A clear "what" is present ("Create or upgrade a Comet Classic workflow Skill via Comet Creator") but there is no positive "Use when..." trigger clause — only a negative boundary — so completeness is capped at 3 per the missing-trigger guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant niche terms like "Comet Classic workflow Skill" and "Comet Creator" but lacks common variations, synonyms, or file extensions users would naturally say, fitting the anchor for some relevant keywords with missing variations.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is specific (Comet Creator, Comet Classic workflow Skills) and the explicit exclusion ("Not for general Skill authoring, cleanup, or review") reduces overlap risk, fitting the anchor for mostly distinct with minor overlap risk; not a 5 because trigger coverage is not comprehensive.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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
rpamis/comet
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.