recipe-plan

Create work plan from design document and obtain plan approval

Quality

41%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/recipe-plan/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

32%

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 a basic idea of the skill's purpose—converting design documents into work plans and getting approval—but it is too terse and lacks explicit trigger guidance. It would benefit significantly from listing concrete actions, specifying input/output formats, and adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to break down a design document into tasks, create an implementation plan, or needs plan approval.'

Include more specific concrete actions, such as 'Parses design documents, breaks requirements into discrete tasks with estimates, generates a structured work plan, and submits for approval.'

Add natural trigger term variations like 'implementation plan', 'task breakdown', 'project plan', 'spec', 'technical design' to improve keyword coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names a domain (work planning from design documents) and two actions (create work plan, obtain plan approval), but lacks detail on what these actions entail concretely—e.g., how the plan is structured, what approval means, or what outputs are produced.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what the skill does (create work plan, obtain approval) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' clause or trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also quite thin, placing this at a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some relevant keywords like 'work plan', 'design document', and 'plan approval' that users might naturally say, but misses common variations such as 'implementation plan', 'project plan', 'spec', 'technical design', 'task breakdown', or 'sign-off'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combination of 'design document' and 'work plan' provides some specificity, but 'work plan' and 'plan approval' are broad enough to potentially overlap with project management, task planning, or other planning-related skills.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

50%

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

This is a moderately well-structured orchestration skill that defines a clear 3-step planning workflow with approval gates. Its main weaknesses are the reliance on external references that can't be verified, the lack of concrete executable examples for sub-agent invocations, and missing error recovery paths for intermediate steps. The conditional prompt construction logic in Step 3 is detailed but reads more like specification prose than actionable instructions.

Suggestions

Add a concrete, copy-paste-ready example of a full Agent tool invocation for Step 3 (work-planner) showing both the test-skeleton and no-test-skeleton variants with actual parameter values.

Add explicit error handling/recovery guidance for Step 2 (what to do if acceptance-test-generator fails or produces partial results).

Consolidate the 'Orchestrator Definition' and 'Scope Boundaries' sections into a single brief preamble to reduce redundancy and improve token efficiency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is moderately efficient but includes some redundancy—repeatedly referencing 'subagents-orchestration-guide skill' and restating coordination patterns. Some sections like the orchestrator definition could be tightened, though overall it avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides a structured process with specific sub-agent invocation parameters (subagent_type, prompt construction rules) and a concrete completion response template. However, key details are delegated to external skills (subagents-orchestration-guide, acceptance-test-generator, work-planner) without inline examples of actual invocations, and the prompt construction logic uses pseudocode-like conditional descriptions rather than executable examples.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Steps are clearly sequenced (1-2-3) with an approval checkpoint at the end and a revision loop for the work plan. However, there's no explicit validation step for the design document content, and the feedback loop for Step 2 (test skeleton generation) is implicit rather than explicit—if generation fails, there's no error recovery guidance.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references external skills (subagents-orchestration-guide, acceptance-test-generator, work-planner) appropriately, but since no bundle files are provided, we can't verify these references resolve correctly. The content is reasonably structured with clear sections, but the scope boundaries and orchestrator definition sections could be consolidated for better organization.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 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: shinpr/claude-code-workflows
Commit: 68ecb4a

Reviewed: about 11 hours 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.