brand-guidelines-anthropic

To access Anthropic's official brand identity and style resources, use this skill.

Quality

48%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/brand-guidelines-anthropic/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

56%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 delivers genuinely actionable brand specifics (hex palettes, font/fallback rules, a preview-and-verify example), but pads them with four sections repeating the same font guidance, maintenance boilerplate, and a reference to a nonexistent license file. It reads as a skill inflated to look comprehensive rather than one tightened to what Claude does not already know.

Suggestions

Collapse "Typography," "Smart Font Application," "Text Styling," and "Font Management" into a single font section stating the rule once: Poppins for headings 24pt+, Lora for body, Arial/Georgia fallbacks.

Remove or relocate the "Compatibility and maintenance" section and its date stamp ("Modified in AAS on 2026-09-05") to a changelog/metadata file; time-sensitive dates penalize conciseness per the rubric.

Fix the bundle claim: either add the referenced license file to the directory or delete the sentence "This directory contains instructions and a license" so the body matches the actual bundle.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The same font guidance (Poppins for headings, Lora for body, Arial/Georgia fallbacks) is repeated across four sections ("Typography," "Smart Font Application," "Text Styling," and "Font Management"), and the dated "Compatibility and maintenance" boilerplate ("Modified in AAS on 2026-09-05") adds tokens without operational value. This is noticeably verbose per anchor 2, though it avoids anchor 1's extensive explanation of concepts Claude already knows.	2 / 5
Actionability	The guidance is concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact hex values (#141413, #d97757, etc.), named fonts with named fallbacks, and a worked procedure ("inspect installed fonts, apply the relevant colors... export a preview"). Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absent code is not penalized, but minor gaps (e.g., how to check whether Poppins/Lora are installed) keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The "Example and prerequisites" section gives a clear sequence — inspect installed fonts, apply colors in the authoring tool, export a preview — with verification checkpoints ("inspect line wrapping and contrast," "Verify exported colors in the destination application"). It fits anchor 4; not 5 because the sequence is embedded in prose rather than an explicit ordered workflow.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body has section structure but contains redundant inline content that should be consolidated, opens with a misplaced "Compatibility and maintenance" section, and claims "This directory contains instructions and a license" when no license file exists in the bundle. This fits anchor 3 ('some structure but could be better organized') rather than anchor 4, whose structure has no such gaps.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

40%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 identifies a clear niche (Anthropic brand styling) but does so in vague, circular language: it says to use the skill to access the very resources the skill provides, without naming a single concrete action or natural trigger term. Compare the rubric's good example, which names applying brand colors and typography and gives explicit 'use when' conditions.

Suggestions

State concrete actions instead of 'access resources', e.g., 'Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography (Poppins/Lora) to presentations, documents, and other artifacts.'

Add an explicit trigger clause with natural terms: 'Use when the user asks for Anthropic-branded styling, brand colors, visual identity, or company design standards.'

Mirror the structure of the rubric's good example ('Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography... Use it when brand colors or style guidelines... apply') by pairing a capabilities sentence with a 'Use when...' sentence.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ("Anthropic's official brand identity and style resources") but lists no concrete actions — it never mentions applying colors, typography, or styling to artifacts. It matches anchor 2 ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic') and falls short of anchor 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions.	2 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is vague ("access... resources") and the 'when' clause ("To access... use this skill") merely restates it rather than providing a distinct trigger scenario, making the description circular. It sits between anchor 2 ('vague what and no when') and anchor 3 ('clear what, weakly implied when') but fits 2 better because the 'what' is not clear.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"brand identity" and "style resources" are relevant keywords a user might say, but common natural variations are missing (e.g., "brand colors," "typography," "visual design," "style guidelines"). This fits anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'), not anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage.'	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Anthropic's official brand identity" carves out a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against generic styling or other brand-specific skills. It fits anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than anchor 5, whose example includes explicit distinct trigger phrases this description lacks.	4 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

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

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Path: skills/brand-guidelines-anthropic/SKILL.md
Commit: 7b534bc

Reviewed: 5 days 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.