conductor-setup
Initialize project with Conductor artifacts (product definition, tech stack, workflow, style guides)
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill conductor-setup66
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
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 provides a basic understanding of the skill's purpose but lacks explicit trigger guidance, which is critical for skill selection. It names specific artifacts which helps with distinctiveness, but the action vocabulary is limited to 'initialize' without explaining the full scope of capabilities or when this skill should be chosen over alternatives.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when starting a new Conductor project, setting up project scaffolding, or when the user mentions product definition, tech stack configuration, or workflow setup'
Include common user phrases and variations such as 'setup', 'bootstrap', 'start new project', 'create project structure', or 'project scaffolding'
Expand the action verbs to clarify what 'initialize' entails - e.g., 'Creates and configures Conductor artifacts including product definition, tech stack, workflow, and style guides'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (project initialization with Conductor) and lists specific artifacts (product definition, tech stack, workflow, style guides), but doesn't describe what actions are performed with these artifacts beyond 'initialize'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (initialize project with artifacts) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'initialize project' and 'Conductor artifacts', but lacks common variations users might say like 'setup', 'start new project', 'bootstrap', or 'create project'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The mention of 'Conductor artifacts' and specific artifact types provides some distinctiveness, but 'initialize project' is generic enough to potentially conflict with other project setup or scaffolding skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%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-structured, highly actionable skill with excellent workflow clarity and state management. Its main weakness is length—the repetitive Q&A sections and inline templates inflate token count when these could be referenced from separate files. The skill successfully guides Claude through a complex multi-step interactive process with proper validation and error recovery.
Suggestions
Extract the Q&A question templates into a separate reference file (e.g., setup-questions.md) and reference it from the main skill to reduce token count
Move the artifact generation templates (index.md, product.md, etc.) to a templates/ directory and reference them rather than inlining the full content
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeated template structures, verbose suggested answer formats). The Q&A protocol sections could be more condensed since the pattern is repetitive across sections. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully concrete guidance with specific JSON schemas, exact file paths, complete markdown templates, and explicit question formats. Claude can execute this without ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with explicit pre-flight checks, state management after each step, verification of file writes, error handling procedures, and resume capability. Validation checkpoints are clearly defined throughout. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is monolithic at ~300 lines when much of the Q&A protocol and template content could be split into separate reference files. References to external resources (implementation-playbook.md, templates/code_styleguides/) exist but the main content is dense. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 13 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
description_trigger_hint | Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...') | Warning |
metadata_version | 'metadata.version' is missing | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
Total | 13 / 16 Passed | |
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.