CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

interrogate

Make the user defend a proposal they committed to. Use when a proposal is committed but its decisions are undefended.

Quality

88%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%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 an exemplar instruction-only skill: terse, concrete, and tightly sequenced with an embedded feedback loop and explicit termination, all within a single well-organized page needing no external references. No weaknesses worth flagging.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it opens with a one-line framing, gives terse numbered steps, and explains nothing Claude already knows, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Despite being instruction-only, the guidance is fully actionable with concrete moves (attack one decision, ask only what the user alone can answer, push back with a worked example — "'fast' gets 'fast how, what number?'") and an explicit three-way sort, matching 'specific examples cover the common cases'.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequence includes a validation checkpoint (sort each answer) and a feedback loop (an answer exposing another undefended decision re-enters the loop), plus an explicit stopping criterion in step 5, matching the anchor requiring explicit validation and feedback loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and no bundle files exist; the body is well-organized into numbered steps with a closing summary and routing guidance, so it qualifies for 5 under the simple-skill exception.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Description

71%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 cleanly answers both what and when with a concrete, third-person trigger phrase, and is well-distinguished from related skills. Its main weakness is narrow trigger-term coverage and only one named action rather than several.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 more concrete actions (e.g., surface undefended decisions, record amendments) to lift specificity toward the 'several specific actions' anchor.

Broaden trigger terms with natural variations a user might say ('defend my design', 'challenge my decisions', 'I committed to a plan') to improve keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names a concrete domain (committed proposal, undefended decisions) and one concrete action ('Make the user defend a proposal they committed to'), but does not enumerate multiple distinct actions, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the 'several specific actions' anchor above.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly states what ('Make the user defend a proposal they committed to') and when ('Use when a proposal is committed but its decisions are undefended') with a concrete trigger phrase, matching the 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when' anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like 'defend a proposal they committed to' and 'decisions are undefended' are reasonably natural, but coverage is narrow with no synonyms or common variations a user might phrase differently, fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger ('committed but decisions undefended') carves a clear niche distinct from sibling skills like elicit and judge, with only minor overlap risk, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the fully distinct anchor above.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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

saadshahd/moo.md

Path

hope/skills/interrogate/SKILL.md

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.