CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

collaborative-design

Designs software features collaboratively through visual scenarios and iterative refinement. Use when designing features, tools, UIs, workflows, or any system before implementation.

Quality

86%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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.

An exemplary lean, well-sequenced instruction skill: the process is explicitly staged with validation checkpoints, an iteration loop, and an exit checklist, and the prose assumes Claude's competence with no padding. The main gaps are the absence of a worked example demonstrating the visual-scenario format it mandates, and a stray unexplained "STARTER_CHARACTER = 🎨" line at the top of the body.

Suggestions

Add one short worked example under "Show Scenarios Visually" (e.g., a before/after config snippet or input → output pair) so the skill itself demonstrates the show-don't-tell format it prescribes.

Remove or explain the stray "STARTER_CHARACTER = 🎨" line — as written it is unexplained noise that breaks the markdown structure of the body.

Optionally show a concrete sample of the options-then-decide interaction (a two-option tradeoff laid out with the follow-up question) to make step 5 copy-paste ready in conversational form.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean throughout ("Stay in design mode. Resist jumping to implementation.", "Visual beats prose.", "Then: implementation.") with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every section carries instruction weight, matching 'every token earns its place'; the only near-blemish is the single stray "STARTER_CHARACTER = 🎨" line, which is too small to drop it to 4.

5 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it gives mostly executable behavioral guidance: "show before and after", "Option A does X, Option B does Y. Which direction?", "Wait for input before proceeding", "POC for risky assumptions (API timing, format parsing)". It stops short of 5 because the core "Show, Don't Tell" section tells rather than shows — the Good example is described abstractly ("Show the actual input and expected output side by side") with no worked visual scenario demonstrating the format it prescribes.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (Problem → Research → Timeline → Scenarios → Decisions → Validation with numbered sections 1-7), an iteration feedback loop is shown in the diagram ("iterate freely" arrow back to Problem), step 6 is an explicit validation checkpoint ("POC for risky assumptions", "Visual test cases"), and "When to Exit Design Mode" is a completion checklist. This matches the anchor for clear sequence plus explicit validation plus feedback loop plus checklist.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized with clear headers and the skill is appropriately self-contained (no references exist or are needed, and nothing is inlined that belongs in a separate file). It does not reach 5 because the body opens with a stray non-markdown line "STARTER_CHARACTER = 🎨" — an unexplained constant that is a minor organization gap — and at ~80 lines it exceeds the under-50-line guideline that would let a self-contained skill score 5 on organization alone.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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.

A well-formed description that clearly states both capability and explicit trigger conditions in third person, with no fluff. Its main weaknesses are limited action specificity (essentially one verb with method elaboration) and a broad "any system" trigger that slightly raises conflict risk with adjacent planning skills.

Suggestions

Enumerate a few more concrete capabilities in the 'what' clause, e.g. "surfaces options with tradeoffs, validates risky assumptions with POCs, and documents decisions" to raise specificity.

Add natural trigger synonyms users actually say, such as "spec", "plan a feature", "mockup", or "wireframe", to broaden trigger coverage.

Narrow "or any system before implementation" to concrete situations (e.g. "before writing code for a new feature") to reduce overlap with generic planning/architecture skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Designs software features collaboratively through visual scenarios and iterative refinement" names the domain (software design) with 1-2 concrete actions (visual scenarios, iterative refinement), matching the anchor for a clear-but-not-comprehensive action list. It does not reach 4 because no list of several distinct specific actions is given, and it is above 2 because the method is concretely characterized rather than generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Designs software features collaboratively through visual scenarios and iterative refinement") and when ("Use when designing features, tools, UIs, workflows, or any system before implementation") with concrete trigger phrases. This parallels the anchor-5 pattern of a clear capability statement plus an explicit 'Use when' clause with named triggers; it is not 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and trigger-phrase-based rather than vague or implicit.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when designing features, tools, UIs, workflows, or any system before implementation" covers good natural keywords (designing, features, tools, UIs, workflows, before implementation) a user would actually say. It falls short of 5 because common synonyms like "spec", "plan", "mockup", "wireframe", or "prototype" are missing, and "any system" is generic rather than a natural trigger phrase.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The design-mode framing ("visual scenarios", "before implementation") carves out a fairly distinct niche, but the trigger "or any system before implementation" is broad and could overlap with planning, architecture, or spec-writing skills. This matches 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than 5's minimal conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

saski/arnesto

Path

.agents/skills/collaborative-design/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.