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

62%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/conductor-validator/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%

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 useful concrete core (directory checks and pattern definitions) but is weakened by templated redundancy, generic instructions, missing validation feedback loops, and a dangling reference to a non-existent playbook file.

Suggestions

Add concrete validation feedback: after each existence check, specify what to do when a required file is missing (e.g., report the gap and which artifact is affected).

Replace the generic Instructions boilerplate ("Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") with concrete validation steps tied to the listed artifacts.

Fix the dangling reference: either create `resources/implementation-playbook.md` or remove the line pointing to it, since no bundle directory is present.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly terse, but repeats the templated phrase "check if conductor directory exists" three times and includes generic boilerplate instructions ("Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes"). Not 1 because there is no concept-explaining wall of text; not 3 because of the redundant templated language and non-earning boilerplate.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete executable checks (ls commands) and specific pattern syntax (status/task markers, track ID format), but the Instructions section is abstract ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs"). Not 3 because the core validation workflow lacks concrete commands beyond existence checks; not 1 because real executable guidance is present.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A sequence of existence-checks is present but there is no validation feedback loop telling Claude what to do when a required file is missing. Not 1 because steps are listed in order; capped at 2 per the missing-checkpoint guidance for a validation skill.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are clearly organized (Use when, Instructions, Pattern Matching, Limitations), but the body references `resources/implementation-playbook.md` which does not exist in any bundle directory. Not 3 because the one-level reference is dangling; not 1 because the content is not a monolithic wall or deeply nested.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

75%

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 clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with an explicit trigger clause and a well-scoped niche. It is held back from perfection mainly by limited action specificity and somewhat procedural rather than natural trigger terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names a concrete domain and one action ("Validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness") but does not list multiple distinct concrete actions. Not 3 because only a single verb is used; not 1 because the domain and action are concrete rather than vague.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers what ("Validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness") and when ("Use after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation"). Meets the explicit "Use when" trigger requirement, so it reaches 3 rather than capping at 2.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes "Use after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation" as triggers, but these are procedural conditions rather than rich natural noun variations a user would say. Not 3 because coverage of natural domain terms is thin; not 1 because several relevant when-conditions are present.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche ("Conductor project artifacts") with distinct triggers, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not 2 because the niche is specific rather than broadly overlapping.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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
Commit: 615669b

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.