shape

Decide the technical path once the ask is clear. Use when the WHAT is confirmed but more than one way to build it remains — architecture, technology, design.

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

84%

Average score across 1 eval scenario

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./hope/skills/shape/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

88%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 lean, well-sequenced routing workflow with an explicit gate and re-entry feedback loop, and concrete per-condition routing to named skills. Its main gaps are the absence of worked routing examples and a referenced file (loop-selection.md) that is not bundled.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 brief worked examples showing a sample open choice and which skill it routes to, to lift actionability.

Either include loop-selection.md in a references/ directory or inline its essential guidance so the 'read loop-selection.md' pointer does not dead-end.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (Extract/Gate/Route/Output) carries directive content and earns its place, matching 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place'; not a 4 because there are no trimmable padded sections.	5 / 5
Actionability	Gives concrete, actionable routing rules keyed to specific conditions and names the exact skill to invoke for each (judge, draft, elicit, clarify, explain), fitting 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps'; not a 5 because there are no worked input-to-route examples illustrating the common cases.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear Extract -> Gate -> Route -> Output sequence with an explicit validation gate ('Proceed only when...') and a feedback loop (decisions re-enter routing; conflicts surfaced and re-routed), matching 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps and feedback loops'; this is a decision/routing skill so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clear headed sections with a single clearly-signaled one-level reference ('read loop-selection.md'), fitting 'good structure; references mostly clear; minor organization gaps'; not a 5 because the referenced loop-selection.md is not present in any bundle directory (references/scripts/assets are absent), so navigation dead-ends.	4 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with a distinct niche around choosing a build path. Its main weakness is abstract action language and conceptual rather than concrete trigger terms.

Suggestions

Replace the abstract 'Decide the technical path' with one or two concrete actions (e.g., 'Pick among competing build approaches and route each open choice to the right skill').

Add concrete user-uttered trigger phrases to the 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when the user asks about architecture, tech stack, or design choices and more than one viable approach remains').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('architecture, technology, design') and a single action ('Decide the technical path'), but the action is abstract rather than a list of concrete operations, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor; not a 2 because the domain is specified with three sub-areas, not merely generic.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' ('Decide the technical path') and 'when' ('Use when the WHAT is confirmed but more than one way to build it remains') are present and explicit, matching the 'has both what and when; when could be more explicit/specific' anchor; not a 5 because the 'when' trigger is conceptual rather than concrete user-uttered phrases.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some natural terms a user might say ('architecture', 'design', 'technology', 'build') but lacks common variations or synonyms and the trigger framing ('the WHAT is confirmed') is more conceptual than user-spoken, fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'; not a 4 because coverage is incomplete.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (choosing among multiple build approaches once the ask is confirmed) with a fairly specific trigger, giving minor overlap risk with related planning skills it itself routes to (intent, clarify); not a 5 because it sits in a meta-routing family where some overlap remains.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: saadshahd/moo.md
Path: hope/skills/shape/SKILL.md
Commit: 7f55b8e

Reviewed: about 11 hours 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.