conductor-validator

Validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness. Use after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation to verify project context.

Quality

51%

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-validator/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

32%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 broken template: an unterminated code block, circular auto-generated 'Use this skill when' filler, abstract boilerplate instructions, and a dangling reference to a nonexistent file. Only the status-marker pattern section provides real, concrete value, and the skill defines no actual validation workflow despite that being its stated purpose.

Suggestions

Fix the malformed opening code block (the ls commands are never fenced open, leaving a stray closing fence) and delete the circular 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' filler, which repeats the heading text verbatim.

Define a real validation workflow: an ordered sequence of checks with expected outcomes and what to report when a required file is missing or a status marker is malformed — the skill currently gives commands but no way to interpret results.

Remove or correct the reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' (no such file exists in the bundle) and replace the generic Instructions bullets with the specific validation criteria for completeness, consistency, and correctness claimed in the description.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Much of the body is template filler: circular 'Use this skill when' text ('Working on check if conductor directory exists tasks or workflows') and boilerplate bullets ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes'). Several sections add no information Claude doesn't already have. Not 3 because the padding is not incidental; multiple whole sections are unnecessary.	2 / 5
Actionability	The directory/file-existence commands ('ls conductor/index.md conductor/product.md...') and the track/task status-marker patterns are concrete and executable, but the Instructions section is entirely abstract with no validation criteria or next steps. Not 4 because key details for acting on results are missing; not 2 because real executable commands and concrete marker syntax are present.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The checks appear as an unsequenced command dump under a heading that is itself a task description, with a broken code fence and no ordering, no expected outcomes, and no validation steps — despite validation being the skill's entire purpose. Not 3 because even a rough numbered sequence with checkpoints is absent.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers exist, but the only external reference ('open resources/implementation-playbook.md') points to a file that does not exist in the bundle, and the opening block is malformed. Not 3 because navigation to deeper material is effectively broken rather than merely unclear; the genuinely useful pattern-matching content is minimal and inline.	2 / 5
	Total	9 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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.

A solid description that clearly states what the skill does and gives explicit, if lifecycle-based, usage triggers anchored to a distinct niche. Its main gap is the absence of concrete trigger phrases and specific check types, which leaves it a step below the top anchor on completeness and specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Conductor project artifacts') and a validation action with three quality attributes ('completeness, consistency, and correctness'), but never states which concrete checks are performed. Not 4 because it does not list several specific actions; not 2 because the domain and action are more than minimal generic language.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both parts are present: the 'what' ('Validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness') and an explicit 'Use after...' when-clause. Not 5 because the when-clause describes lifecycle stages rather than concrete trigger phrases a user would actually say.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'Use after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation to verify project context' includes natural phrases a user would plausibly say. Not 5 because common variations and synonyms (e.g., 'check', 'audit', 'Conductor setup') are missing; not 3 because the coverage goes beyond merely relevant keywords.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Conductor project artifacts' carves out a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against unrelated skills. Not 5 because the triggers ('after setup', 'diagnosing issues', 'before implementation') are lifecycle-generic and could overlap broader project-validation or debugging skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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-validator/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.