CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

b

Second skill in the multi-skill fixture repo, used to test fan-out validation.

40

Quality

39%

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/agentskills-repo/skills/b/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%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 admirably concise and appropriately structured for a minimal single-step skill, but the single instruction is non-actionable because 'the second thing' is never defined. It reads as a placeholder fixture rather than executable guidance.

Suggestions

Replace 'Do the second thing' with a concrete, executable instruction defining the actual action.

If the action involves batch or destructive operations, add an explicit validation/verification checkpoint.

Keep the existing lean structure while making the step specific enough to act on without inference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a single heading and one numbered line with zero padding or over-explanation, fully assuming Claude's competence so that every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Actionability

"Do the second thing" leaves "the second thing" completely undefined, offering no concrete code, command, or specific step — it describes rather than instructs, matching the 'entirely vague or abstract; no concrete guidance' anchor and not reaching anchor 2 which requires at least high-level executable hints.

1 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A single step is listed so the sequence is trivially coherent, but the action is ambiguous ("the second thing" is undefined), so the simple-skill 5 exception for unambiguous single actions does not apply; it sits above the 'many gaps' anchor 2 yet below a clear-checkpoint anchor 4.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references and no bundle files present, and the heading-plus-step layout is well-organized for its tiny scope, satisfying the simple-skill exception that allows a 5 with just well-organized sections.

5 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

This is a test-fixture description rather than a genuine skill description: it identifies the skill's role in a fixture repo instead of stating capabilities or invocation triggers. It is minimally specific, lacks any natural trigger terms, and omits the 'when to use' guidance entirely.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description to state concrete capabilities in third person (e.g., 'Performs <action> on <target>').

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases a user would actually say.

Replace the meta/test jargon with domain keywords and synonyms that distinguish this skill from others.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a domain ("multi-skill fixture repo", "fan-out validation") but states no concrete capability actions — there is no verb describing what the skill does, only what it is, matching the 'names domain but actions minimal/generic' anchor and falling short of anchor 3 which requires concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

It offers only a vague 'what' ("used to test fan-out validation" describes the fixture's purpose, not a capability) and entirely omits any 'when'/'Use when' trigger guidance, matching the 'vague what and no when' anchor; the missing trigger clause also caps completeness at 3, so it cannot be higher.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "fan-out validation" and "multi-skill fixture repo" are meta/test jargon a user would never say to invoke a skill, with no natural keywords present, matching the 'no natural keywords; only technical jargon' anchor.

1 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It names a specific test purpose giving low overlap risk, but establishes no real capability niche that a user would match against, fitting 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' better than the very-broad anchor 2 or the distinct-niche anchor 4.

3 / 5

Total

8

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
saif-shines/doraval
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.