CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

minutes-debrief

Post-meeting debrief — analyzes what happened, compares outcomes to your prep intentions, tracks decision evolution. Use when the user says "debrief", "what just happened in that meeting", "what did we decide", "debrief that call", "post-meeting", "what changed", or right after stopping a recording.

72

Quality

91%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced interactive workflow: exact commands, exact prompts, output templates, and explicit handling of every failure branch, with no wasted explanation. The two weaknesses are the duplicated presentation-focus instructions across Phases 4a/4b and the fully inline ~220-line layout with no reference files for templates and gotchas.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the presentation-focus ordering instructions: Phase 4b repeats the same get-presentation-focus check and ordering rules already given in Phase 4a — factor them into one shared step referenced by both branches.

Move the debrief output templates and/or the Gotchas list into a reference file (e.g., references/templates.md) to shorten SKILL.md and provide one-level-deep progressive disclosure for detail Claude only needs at output time.

Trim rationale sentences that restate rules already given (e.g., the sensitivity paragraph in Phase 2a repeats the do-not-bypass instruction twice within five lines).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Efficient overall: exact commands, ready-to-say phrasing, and a gotchas list with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the presentation-focus ordering logic is duplicated across Phase 4a and 4b, and a few rationale sentences ('Sensitivity is binding, not advisory') could be trimmed; not 3 because the excess is minor, not 'several unnecessary explanations'.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact bash commands ('minutes list --limit 5', 'minutes get "<exact path>" --json'), exact AskUserQuestion wording with option lists, copy-ready output templates, exact fallback phrasing for each failure mode, and concrete learn-cli invocations. Covers the common cases completely.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 6-phase flow with explicit validation checkpoints ('require exit status 0', 'Don't proceed without a recording', stale-prep 48h rule) and feedback loops for every branch: no recording, multiple recordings, capture:none, no speaker map, no prep, multiple matching preps. No destructive or batch operations, so no cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: well-labeled phases and sub-phases, a clearly separated Gotchas section, and no buried or nested references; every external path is signaled inline with a concrete command. Not 5 because at ~220 lines everything is inline — the output templates and 10-item gotchas list could live in reference files — and the skill is well past the under-50-line simple-skill range where inline-only structure would score 5.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

91%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 strong description: third-person, concrete about capabilities, with an explicit 'Use when' clause containing natural, varied trigger phrases including a situational trigger (right after stopping a recording). The only weakness is that a couple of trigger terms ('what changed', 'what did we decide') are generic enough to risk overlap with closely related meeting-analysis skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'analyzes what happened, compares outcomes to your prep intentions, tracks decision evolution' — in the post-meeting domain. Not 5 because coverage has minor gaps (e.g., surfacing action items, a core debrief output, is only implied by 'analyzes what happened'); not 3 because more than 1-2 specific actions are named.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ('analyzes what happened, compares outcomes to your prep intentions, tracks decision evolution') and when ('Use when the user says...') with concrete quoted trigger phrases. Matches the anchor-5 example pattern exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger phrases with synonyms: 'debrief', 'debrief that call', 'post-meeting', 'what did we decide', 'what changed', 'what just happened in that meeting', and a situational trigger ('right after stopping a recording'). These are exactly the phrases a user would say; no common variations are missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (post-meeting debrief) with mostly distinct triggers; the recording-related and 'debrief' terms are unlikely to fire the wrong skill. Not 5 because 'what changed' and 'what did we decide' are generic enough to overlap with sibling minutes skills (e.g., a summary or weekly-review skill).

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

silverstein/minutes

Path

tooling/skills/goldens/claude/minutes-debrief/SKILL.md

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.