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

56%

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

50%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 has a genuinely useful Pattern Matching section but is undermined by a broken opening code fence, generic boilerplate Instructions, a validation workflow that only checks file existence rather than the consistency/correctness it claims, and a dangling reference to a non-existent resources file. It lands at the midpoint across all dimensions.

Suggestions

Fix the broken code block at the top (missing opening fence) and replace the repetitive templated "Use this skill when" lines with real trigger conditions.

Add concrete validation steps beyond `ls` existence checks — e.g., parse tracks.md status markers against the documented pattern, verify track IDs match `<type>_<name>_<YYYYMMDD>`, and report mismatches — with an explicit 'if a required file is missing, report and stop' checkpoint.

Either create `resources/implementation-playbook.md` or remove the dangling reference, so progressive disclosure points at real files.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The Pattern Matching section earns its place, but the generic Instructions boilerplate ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs", "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") and the templated "Use this skill when" lines that repeat "check if conductor directory exists" verbatim are padding that could be trimmed, fitting the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor.	3 / 5
Actionability	The `ls` commands and the status/task marker examples are concrete and executable, but the actual validation logic the description promises (consistency, correctness) is not provided — only file existence is checked — so key details are missing, matching the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough sequence exists (check directory, find tracks, check required files), but for a skill whose purpose is validation there are no checkpoints, no guidance on what to do when a file is missing, and no feedback loop, matching the 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing' anchor.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are organized, but the only external reference ("open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`") points to a file that does not exist (no resources/ or bundle directory is present), leaving a dangling reference, which fits the 'some structure but references not clearly backed' band rather than a clean 4.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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, concise, and clearly answers both what and when with concrete situational triggers, but it lists only one action verb and lacks natural user-utterance keywords and synonyms. It is solidly above average but not comprehensive.

Suggestions

Enumerate the specific validation actions performed (e.g., 'checks required files exist, verifies track IDs match the naming pattern, confirms status markers are valid') to lift specificity from 3 to 4-5.

Add natural user-utterance trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user mentions Conductor, track setup, or project onboarding') to improve trigger-term quality and distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ("Conductor project artifacts") and a single concrete action ("Validates ... for completeness, consistency, and correctness"), but does not enumerate multiple distinct actions, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the several-actions anchor at 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	It states both what ("Validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness") and when ("Use after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation") with concrete scenarios, but the 'when' is situational rather than user-utterance triggers, so it sits at 4 rather than the fully explicit anchor 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "Use after setup", "when diagnosing issues", and "before implementation" give some relevant situational triggers, but natural user-utterance keywords and synonyms/file extensions are missing, fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The "Conductor" niche is specific and mostly distinct from other skills, with only minor overlap risk from generic triggers like "when diagnosing issues", matching the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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-validator/SKILL.md
Commit: 1f67c44

Reviewed: about 16 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.