CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

agentskills-oversized

Body deliberately exceeds the Level 2 line/token budget to exercise the progressive-disclosure warning.

Quality

27%

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 ./test/fixtures/skills/agentskills-oversized/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

0%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 deliberate filler with zero instructional value: 520 copies of the same padding sentence under one heading. It is a test fixture engineered to exceed the 500-line budget, not a usable skill body, and scores at the bottom on every dimension.

Suggestions

Replace the 520 filler list items with actual task instructions — or delete them entirely, since they convey no operations.

Cut the body well under the 500-line budget and move any detailed material into references/ files with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.

If a real multi-step workflow is intended, define concrete executable steps with explicit validation checkpoints instead of placeholder items.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is 520 identical lines ('Step number N in a long list that pushes this file past the 500-line budget.') — maximally padded, with every line restating the same fact. This matches anchor 1 ('Severely verbose... heavily padded'); no higher anchor fits since there is no efficient content at all.

1 / 5

Actionability

There is no code, command, or concrete instruction anywhere; each step is a placeholder describing only its own existence ('Step number 5 in a long list that pushes this file past the 500-line budget.'). This matches anchor 1 ('no concrete code or commands; only describes rather than instructs') rather than anchor 2, whose example at least names real actions.

1 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The numbered list conveys no actual workflow — steps are incoherent filler with no real actions, no sequencing of work, and no validation checkpoints. This fits anchor 1 ('Steps missing or incoherent; no sequence; no validation') better than anchor 2, whose rough steps ('Open the document') at least describe genuine operations.

1 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A monolithic wall of 520 identical lines under a single heading with no sections, no references, and no navigation; no bundle files exist to offset this. This matches anchor 1 ('Monolithic wall of text with no structure... impossible to navigate').

1 / 5

Total

4

/

20

Passed

Description

21%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 documents the file's purpose as a deliberately oversized test fixture rather than describing a usable skill: it states no user-facing capabilities and provides no trigger guidance. It is specific about its meta-intent but fails as a skill description on every functional dimension.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause stating when Claude should invoke the skill — completeness is capped without one.

Describe the concrete, user-facing actions the skill performs instead of the file's construction metadata.

Include natural trigger terms a user would actually say, rather than meta jargon like 'Level 2 line/token budget'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

'Body deliberately exceeds the Level 2 line/token budget to exercise the progressive-disclosure warning' names a specific behavior, but it describes the file's construction rather than any user-facing capability — matching anchor 2 ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'). Not 3, because no concrete skill actions are listed.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is meta-commentary about the artifact rather than a capability description, and the 'when' is entirely absent — matching anchor 2 ('Has a vague what and no when'). Not 3, because a score-3 example still states real capabilities ('Extract text and tables from PDF files').

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The only keywords are meta jargon ('Level 2 line/token budget', 'progressive-disclosure warning') that no user would naturally say when needing a skill. This matches anchor 1 ('No natural keywords; only technical jargon') exactly.

1 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unique jargon makes overlap with other skills unlikely, but it offers no usable niche trigger and could blur with other skill-authoring or example skills. This fits anchor 3 ('Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'); not 4 because the distinctiveness comes from test-fixture vocabulary rather than genuine triggers.

3 / 5

Total

8

/

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

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (528 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

saif-shines/doraval

Path

test/fixtures/skills/agentskills-oversized/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.