CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

recipe-design

Execute from codebase analysis to design document creation

56

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/recipe-design/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

The body is a strong, highly actionable orchestration spec with excellent workflow clarity — explicit sequence, validation gates, feedback loops, and a checklist — supported by exact subagent invocation templates. Its only real drag is mild redundancy across the three representations of the flow and the absence of any file-level content split for a >50-line skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and procedural without padding in basic concepts, but the flow is restated three times (Execution Protocol, ASCII Workflow Overview, detailed Execution Flow) and the CRITICAL note plus the subagents-orchestration-guide caveat paragraph repeat already-covered points, fitting 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'.

2 / 3

Actionability

It specifies exact subagent_type strings, description values, and concrete prompt templates with explicit bracketed placeholders, plus exact AskUserQuestion options and edge-case recovery — copy-paste-ready Agent tool invocations that are fully executable guidance for an orchestration skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–4 are clearly sequenced with explicit [STOP] validation checkpoints, named quality gates, a re-run feedback loop in Step 3, edge-case recovery in Step 1, and a Completion Criteria checklist, matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists' anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and external references (subagents-orchestration-guide, llm-friendly-context, subagent_types) are clearly signaled one level deep, but no bundle files exist and all detail is inline in a single ~120-line file, fitting 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 conveys the skill's purpose at a high level but is uniformly mediocre across all dimensions: it states what happens without explicit trigger guidance and uses process jargon over natural user language. Every dimension lands at the middle anchor, yielding a normalized score of 0.5.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause (e.g., 'Use when moving from codebase analysis to producing a design document or ADR') to lift completeness above the current 2-cap.

Incorporate natural trigger terms and common variations a user would say — 'design doc', 'architecture', 'ADR', 'technical design' — to improve trigger-term coverage.

Replace the abstract 'Execute from X to Y' framing with a list of concrete actions (e.g., 'Analyze the codebase, confirm design scope, produce ADRs or Design Docs, and verify them against existing code') to raise specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain and two high-level actions ("codebase analysis" and "design document creation") but frames them as a phase flow rather than listing multiple concrete actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does but provides no 'when' guidance; there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes reasonably natural terms ("codebase analysis", "design document") but leans toward jargon and omits common variations a user would actually say (design doc, architecture, ADR, technical design), fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It targets a specific niche (the design phase) but overlaps with the broader dev-workflows family it orchestrates and lacks distinct triggers, matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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
shinpr/claude-code-workflows
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.