conductor-implement

Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow

Quality

60%

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/conductor-implement/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

70%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.

This is a well-sequenced, highly actionable workflow skill with strong validation gates and error-recovery loops — workflow clarity is exemplary. It is dragged down by generic boilerplate sections that pad token cost without adding skill-specific value, and by a progressive-disclosure failure: the only referenced detail file is missing from the bundle.

Suggestions

Remove or rewrite the generic 'Instructions', 'Use this skill when / Do not use this skill when', and 'Limitations' sections into skill-specific content, or delete them entirely — they restate defaults Claude already applies.

Fix the dangling `resources/implementation-playbook.md` reference: either ship the playbook file in the bundle (e.g., under references/) or remove the pointer, since no such file exists.

Tighten the remaining vague instructions — replace "Run full test suite: npm test / pytest / etc." and "Debug and fix" with concrete, conditioned commands to close the gap to fully executable guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The core workflow sections are tight imperative bullets, but generic boilerplate adds unnecessary tokens: "Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes", "You need a different domain or tool outside this scope", and the whole Limitations section state things Claude already assumes. This matches 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be trimmed' rather than level 2, since the padding is confined to a few short sections.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete guidance dominates: exact file paths ("conductor/tracks/{trackId}/plan.md"), copy-paste git commands ("git commit -m \"{commit_prefix}: {task description} ({trackId})\""), a full metadata.json example, and exact status-transition syntax ([ ] -> [~] -> [x]). Minor gaps keep it below 5: "Run full test suite: `npm test` / `pytest` / etc.", "Debug and fix", and "Manual verification as needed" are underspecified.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The multi-step process is fully sequenced (pre-flight checks -> track selection -> context loading -> task loop -> completion -> resumption) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: "If tests pass unexpectedly: HALT, investigate", "CRITICAL: Wait for explicit user approval before proceeding to next phase", and three structured error-recovery option menus. This matches the level-5 anchor 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The single reference ("open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`") is clearly signaled but the file does not exist in the bundle (no references/, resources/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present), making it a dangling pointer. The ~390-line body is well-sectioned but monolithic, matching 'Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled' rather than level 4, since the only offload target is broken.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

50%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 states a clear, third-person 'what' but omits any 'when to use' trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3, and its keyword coverage lacks natural synonyms. It is serviceable but reads like a minimal one-liner rather than a distinguishing trigger.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to implement, execute, or continue work on a Conductor track, run TDD red/green/refactor cycles, or pick up incomplete plan tasks.'

Add natural synonyms and variations users would actually say, such as 'implement plan tasks', 'continue a track', 'red-green-refactor', and 'execute the implementation plan'.

Briefly enumerate 2-3 concrete actions (e.g., run failing tests first, commit per task, update plan.md/metadata.json) to raise specificity and distinctiveness against generic TDD skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow" names the domain and one composite action (executing plan tasks under TDD), matching the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It does not list several discrete actions (e.g., running tests, committing per task, updating track status) as the level-4/5 anchors require.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (execute plan tasks following TDD workflow) but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is above level 2 because the 'what' is concrete, not vague.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like "implementation plan", "TDD workflow", and "track" are relevant, but common natural variations a user might say ("implement the plan", "execute tasks", "work on a feature track", "red-green-refactor") are missing, matching 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. Not level 2, since more than one or two generic keywords are present.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"a track's implementation plan" ties it to a specific conductor workflow, but the description could still fire for generic implementation or TDD requests, matching 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'. It falls short of level 4 because no distinct trigger phrasing separates it from closely related coding/TDD skills.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 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/conductor-implement/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.