conductor-implement

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

Quality

61%

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.

The body is a well-sequenced, validation-rich workflow with concrete commands and file paths that make it highly actionable and clear to follow. Its main weaknesses are token weight from illustrative output blocks and only modest progressive disclosure — most detail is inlined rather than split into referenced files.

Suggestions

Trim the illustrative terminal-output blocks (selection menu, error option lists, completion summary) to short schemas or omit them to improve token efficiency.

Move the full metadata.json schema and the example output templates into the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or a dedicated file) and link to them, deepening progressive disclosure.

Tighten placeholder-laden command templates with one fully-resolved worked example so the guidance is copy-paste ready.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows (no "what is TDD" preamble), but it spends many tokens on illustrative terminal-output blocks (selection menus, error templates, completion summaries) that are display boilerplate rather than instruction and could be trimmed.	3 / 5
Actionability	It gives concrete file paths, status markers ([ ]/[~]/[x]), executable git commands, and a full metadata.json schema; the gaps are placeholder-filled templates ({trackId}, {task description}) and a few prose steps that rely on Claude filling in details, keeping it just short of fully copy-paste ready.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The process is explicitly sequenced (pre-flight → selection → context → status → task loop → phase verification → completion) with strong validation checkpoints ("CRITICAL: Wait for explicit user approval", "STOP on any failure"), error-recovery feedback loops, and a Critical Rules checklist — fully meeting the destructive/batch requirement rather than triggering the cap.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well organized and there is one clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ("open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`"), but no bundle files exist and substantial content that could live in separate files (the metadata.json schema, the menu/error output templates) is inlined, leaving structure only moderately split.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 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 is third-person and states a clear concrete action with a TDD qualifier, but it is minimal and lacks any explicit "Use when..." trigger guidance, leaving a user unsure when to invoke it. It is serviceable yet thin on both completeness and trigger-term coverage.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause naming natural triggers, e.g. "Use when implementing tasks from a conductor track plan, resuming an in-progress track, or running TDD red/green/refactor cycles."

Broaden trigger terms with synonyms users actually say ("implement a track", "run plan tasks", "continue a feature track", "resume implementation").

Add 1-2 more concrete actions to lift specificity, e.g. "Execute tasks, update track status, run phase verification, and commit progress following TDD workflow."

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Execute tasks from a track's implementation plan following TDD workflow" names the domain (track implementation plan) and one concrete action (execute tasks) plus the TDD constraint, but coverage is not comprehensive — it omits the supporting actions the body actually performs (status updates, verification, commits).	3 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is clearly stated (execute track tasks via TDD) but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3 even though the what-side is solid.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It surfaces relevant terms like "implementation plan" and "TDD workflow" that developers use, but misses common variations or synonyms a user might naturally say (e.g. "implement a track", "run plan tasks", "continue a feature track").	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The track/TDD framing carves a clear niche within the conductor family with only minor overlap risk against sibling skills like conductor:status or conductor:new-track; not a 5 because "implementation plan" could brush against general task-execution skills.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/antigravity-awesome-skills
Path: skills/conductor-implement/SKILL.md
Commit: 1f67c44

Reviewed: about 15 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.