with-scenarios

Use when testing scenario coverage in review tier 3.

Quality

49%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./test/fixtures/skills/with-scenarios/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%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 concise and lightly structured as a simple skill, but its steps are vague and lack executable commands or a concrete verification method. It reads more as a directive checklist than actionable guidance.

Suggestions

Replace "Run the test suite" and "Verify the output" with concrete commands and the specific pass/fail criteria to check, lifting actionability above 2.

Make the verification checkpoint explicit (e.g., a command plus the expected exit condition) so workflow_clarity can reach 4-5.

Drop the redundant "MUST follow the rubric. MUST NOT skip steps." filler to push conciseness to 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is very lean and assumes competence, fitting the score-4 anchor "Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed"; the trailing "MUST follow the rubric. MUST NOT skip steps." directives are minor padding that keep it just below a 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	"Run the test suite" and "Verify the output" give high-level hints but no commands or concrete steps, matching the score-2 anchor "Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute"; it is not a 3 because no executable detail or example is provided.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A two-step sequence exists with an implicit verification checkpoint ("Verify the output", "Ensure all checks pass"), matching the score-3 anchor where steps are listed but checkpoints are implicit; it is capped at 3 rather than 4 because the verification lacks specifics on what to check or how.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	This is a simple under-50-line skill with no external references needed, so the simple-skill exception applies; the single heading plus numbered list is reasonably well-organized, fitting the score-4 anchor "Good structure; most content is appropriately placed" rather than 5 because organization is minimal.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

45%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 provides an explicit trigger clause and a named domain, but no concrete capabilities and somewhat circular what/when phrasing, leaving it at the midpoint of the scale. The internal jargon "review tier 3" limits natural trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., "runs scenario coverage checks and reports gaps") so specificity and completeness rise above 3.

Replace or gloss the internal jargon "review tier 3" with a natural phrase a user would actually say to improve trigger-term quality.

State the 'what' distinctly from the 'when' so the description clearly answers both questions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase "testing scenario coverage" names the domain but names no concrete actions, matching the score-2 anchor "Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic"; it does not reach 3 because no concrete capability is enumerated.	2 / 5
Completeness	An explicit "Use when" clause is present and a 'what' (testing scenario coverage) is implied, but the 'what' and 'when' are essentially the same circular phrase, matching the score-3 anchor where the 'what' is clear but thin; it is not a 4 because neither element is concretely specified.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"Use when testing scenario coverage" supplies some relevant natural keywords, but "review tier 3" is internal jargon and common synonyms are missing, fitting the score-3 anchor; it falls short of 4 due to thin coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The "review tier 3" qualifier carves out a niche but "testing scenario coverage" is still broad enough to overlap with other testing/review skills, fitting the score-3 anchor "Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills".	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 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: saif-shines/doraval
Path: test/fixtures/skills/with-scenarios/SKILL.md
Commit: 0fa2092

Reviewed: 1 day 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.