CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

recipe-front-plan

Create frontend work plan from design document and obtain plan approval

58

Quality

67%

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 ./skills/recipe-front-plan/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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 a tightly structured, highly actionable orchestration recipe with explicit validation gates and feedback loops, scoring high on workflow clarity and actionability. It is efficient and well-sectioned, with only minor conciseness trims and progressive-disclosure organization gaps.

Suggestions

Remove the redundant 'Follow the planning process below:' line that duplicates the Execution Protocol / Execution Process heading.

Consolidate the Scope Boundaries and Execution Protocol sections, which overlap on what the skill includes and where it completes.

Clarify the placeholder resolution for [Design Doc path] and [plan-name].md with a one-line note on how the values are derived to close the actionability gap to 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence with domain-specific gates rather than padding, though a few redundant lines ('Follow the planning process below' plus repeated scope framing) could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Steps give concrete, executable Agent invocations with exact subagent_type and field mappings plus the 'mechanical extraction' instruction; minor placeholders like [Design Doc path] and conditional 'when one exists' clauses keep it just short of fully copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence carries explicit validation checkpoints (Review Resolution Gate, mandatory approval stop) and feedback loops (re-invoke work-planner on user changes and re-run Step 4), matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The document is well-organized into distinct sections with clear navigation and is self-contained (no local bundle files exist), but at ~90 lines with some inline density it is not the clean simple-skill 5 case.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 clearly states what the skill does in third person but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps completeness and limits trigger-term quality. It is reasonably distinct from unrelated skills though it overlaps slightly with adjacent planning workflows.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause naming natural user triggers, e.g. 'Use when planning frontend implementation from an approved design document.'

Include common synonyms/variations users might say such as 'frontend plan', 'UI implementation plan', or 'design-to-plan'.

Consider mentioning the input artifact types (design doc, UI spec, PRD) to strengthen trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the frontend-planning domain and two concrete actions ('Create frontend work plan' and 'obtain plan approval'), matching the 1-2 concrete actions anchor without being comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear but there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger clause, so the missing 'when' caps completeness at 3 per the judging guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like 'frontend work plan', 'design document', and 'plan approval' appear, but common synonyms/variations and natural 'Use when' phrasing are missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The frontend-planning-from-design-doc niche is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against closely related dev-workflow planning skills, fitting the 'mostly distinct' anchor.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

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.