CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

skill-craft

Start a session to write or improve a kit skill. A user-started orchestrator.

Quality

71%

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 ./plugins/tooling/skills/skill-craft/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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.

A well-engineered lifecycle orchestrator: clearly sequenced phases with explicit gates, validation feedback loops, and genuinely functional progressive disclosure to a real, one-level-deep reference. The main improvement levers are eliminating body/reference duplication and clarifying a few kit-internal phrases that are meaningless without the reference loaded.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the frontmatter template, body-shape requirements, and dora loop between SKILL.md and references/skill-craft-methodology.md — keep one authoritative copy (the reference) and summarize the rest inline.

Clarify 'Organize work in sibling workspace directories. Capture timing from notifications.' with the concrete directory layout (e.g., `<skill-name>-workspace/iteration-N/eval-M/{with_skill,without_skill}/`) that already exists in the reference.

Merge 'When to Switch Skills' and 'Relation to the Upstream Skill-Creator', since both sections route the same /skill-creator cases.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative ('State the phase or paste the request. The skill will route and keep you on the rails.') and assumes Claude's competence, never explaining general concepts. It falls short of a 5 because of real redundancy: the frontmatter template, body requirements, and dora loop appear in both SKILL.md and references/skill-craft-methodology.md, and 'When to Switch Skills' overlaps 'Relation to the Upstream Skill-Creator' — all trimmable.

4 / 5

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: an exact copy-paste frontmatter template, exact commands with exit-code semantics (`dora review <skill-dir> --format json`, `dora fix <skill-dir> --yes`, `npx @hackmith/doraval` fallback), exact paths (`in-progress/<name>/`, `plugins/<plugin>/skills/<name>/`), and concrete numbers ('Generate 15-20 realistic eval queries'). Not a 5 because the Test & Iterate section has cryptic, under-specified steps ('Organize work in sibling workspace directories. Capture timing from notifications.') that only resolve after loading the reference or /skill-creator.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 5-phase table, explicit 'Phase Gates' with entry/exit criteria between every transition, a 12-item Quality Checklist, and a literal validate → fix → re-validate feedback loop ('Do not report done while the exit code is 1 or 2... Re-run until exit 0') are exactly the anchor's 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes.' The 'Done when' convention per step reinforces sequencing.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Verified against the actual bundle: references/skill-craft-methodology.md exists, is one level deep, and genuinely contains the claimed material (capture checklist, drafting anatomy, optimization mechanics, packaging commands), signaled four times with the consistent '> For expanded X, load references/...' blockquote pattern. Not a 5 because the split is imperfect — the frontmatter template, body-shape rules, and much of the dora loop are duplicated nearly verbatim between body and reference, and the inline dora command sequence and long checklist could largely live in the reference.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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 short, honest, and names a clear niche, but it omits the trigger half of the contract: no 'Use when...' clause, no concrete capability enumeration, and no boundary clause against the sibling skills it explicitly coexists with. Every dimension lands at the anchor where 'what' is present but 'when' and specificity detail are absent.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when the user says "turn this into a skill", "make a skill", or asks to improve an existing kit skill' clause with the concrete trigger phrases the Capture phase already instructs users to collect.

Enumerate 2-3 concrete capabilities in the description, e.g. 'Runs capture → draft → test → optimize → package phases with interview questions, a frontmatter template, and the dora validation gate.'

Add the boundary sentence ('It does not restructure plugins (that's plugin-craft); use /skill-creator for the full eval harness') to the description itself so trigger decisions don't confuse it with sibling skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

'Start a session to write or improve a kit skill' names the domain (kit skills) and two actions (write, improve), matching the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' (cf. 'Processes PDF files and extracts content'). It is above a 2 because two actions are stated rather than one generic verb, but below a 4 because none of the concrete capabilities the body actually orchestrates (capture/interview, drafting SKILL.md, testing, description optimization, packaging) are named, and 'A user-started orchestrator' is a role label, not an action.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('write or improve a kit skill') but the 'when' is entirely missing — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance; 'A user-started orchestrator' only weakly implies invocation mode. This matches the anchor 'Has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied', and the rubric guideline explicitly caps completeness at 3 for a missing 'Use when' clause. Not a 2 because the 'what' is specific, not vague.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'write or improve a ... skill' contains relevant keywords that map to real user phrasing, but the description misses common variations and synonyms ('create a skill', 'make a skill', 'turn this into a skill') and spends tokens on non-trigger jargon ('kit skill', 'A user-started orchestrator') that no user would type — matching the anchor 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' (cf. 'Works with PDF files').

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Skill authoring is a specific niche, but the description itself offers no boundary differentiation from the closely related sibling /skill-creator (which also covers skill authoring) or plugin-craft — the 'It does not restructure plugins (that's plugin-craft)' boundary lives in the body, not the description. Matching the anchor 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills', a description-only trigger decision could pick the wrong sibling; it is above a 2 because the scope is narrow and 'user-started' does separate it from auto-triggered skills.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 2 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

saif-shines/devex-kit

Path

plugins/tooling/skills/skill-craft/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.