job-description

When the user needs to write, review, or improve a job posting for a startup role.

Quality

58%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/job-description/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a strong, actionable skill with a clear workflow and excellent examples. Its main weakness is length — several reference sections (anti-patterns, inclusive language, startup framing) could be extracted into separate files to reduce token cost. The content is well-organized but slightly verbose in areas where Claude's existing knowledge could be leveraged more.

Suggestions

Extract the Frameworks & Best Practices subsections (anti-patterns, inclusive language, compensation transparency, startup framing) into a separate reference file and link to it, keeping only the HERO structure and a brief summary in the main skill.

Remove explanatory rationale that Claude already knows (e.g., 'research shows this matters for women and minority applicants', 'Listings with ranges get significantly more applicants') and keep only the actionable instruction.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is reasonably well-written but includes some content Claude already knows (e.g., explaining why gendered language is bad, why salary ranges matter). The anti-patterns section and inclusive language guidelines, while useful, could be tightened. The HERO framework acronym explanation is somewhat redundant given the workflow already covers the same ground.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides highly concrete, actionable guidance: specific section structures with bullet counts (6-8 bullets for What You'll Do), word count targets (400-700 words), specific anti-patterns with concrete fixes, and two complete example prompt/output pairs showing exactly what good output looks like.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced from role clarification through final polish, with an explicit anti-pattern check step (step 4) serving as a validation checkpoint. The process logically flows from understanding the need to producing polished output, and includes a review step for comp and inclusivity before final polish.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-structured with clear sections and headers, but it's quite long for a single file. The frameworks, anti-patterns, inclusive language guidelines, compensation transparency, and startup-specific framing sections could be split into referenced files. The related skills section is a nice touch but the main file itself is monolithic at ~150+ lines.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

40%

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 a clear trigger condition ('When the user needs to...') and identifies the domain (startup job postings), but lacks specificity about what concrete actions or outputs the skill provides. It misses common keyword variations like 'job description' or 'JD' and doesn't clearly distinguish itself from general writing assistance skills.

Suggestions

Add specific concrete capabilities like 'Drafts job descriptions with role requirements, compensation details, and company culture sections; reviews postings for inclusivity and clarity; optimizes listings for applicant tracking systems.'

Expand trigger terms to include common variations: 'job description', 'JD', 'job listing', 'job ad', 'hiring post', 'recruiting'.

Separate the 'what' and 'when' more clearly, e.g., list capabilities first, then add 'Use when the user mentions writing a job posting, job description, or hiring for a startup role.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description mentions 'write, review, or improve' which are generic actions, and 'job posting for a startup role' names the domain but doesn't list concrete specific capabilities like formatting, salary benchmarking, inclusivity checks, or SEO optimization.	1 / 3
Completeness	The description answers 'when' with 'When the user needs to...' but the 'what' is weak — it only vaguely says 'write, review, or improve a job posting' without describing specific capabilities or outputs. The 'what' and 'when' are conflated into one clause rather than clearly articulated.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some natural keywords like 'job posting', 'startup role', 'write', 'review', and 'improve' that users might say, but misses common variations like 'job description', 'JD', 'hiring', 'job listing', 'job ad', 'recruiting'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The 'startup role' qualifier adds some distinctiveness, but 'write, review, or improve' is broad enough to overlap with general writing/editing skills. It could conflict with generic copywriting or HR-related skills.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: shawnpang/startup-founder-skills
Commit: 4ad31b4

Reviewed: 3 months 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.