CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

minutes-mirror

Self-coaching analysis of your own behavior across meetings — talk-time ratio, filler words, hedging language, monologue length, energy patterns, and (when meetings are tagged via /minutes-tag) what your behavior in winning meetings looks like vs losing ones. Use this whenever the user says "how did I do", "review my last meeting", "mirror", "self-review", "show my patterns", "coach me", "where am I weak", "talk time", "am I improving", "what do I do in meetings I win", "feedback on me", or asks for any kind of personal feedback on their own meeting behavior. This is the rare skill that gives the user a mirror to their own habits — surface it whenever they show curiosity about their own performance, even if they don't use the word "mirror".

72

Quality

88%

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

81%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 skill body with strong validation and error-recovery loops. The main drag is conciseness: several thresholds and caveats are stated twice and some justificatory asides repeat.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the data-threshold rules: state the ≥5-meeting and ≥3-per-group thresholds once in Phase 2b and have the Gotchas section reference them rather than restate them.

Collapse the 'LLMs are bad at exact token counting' rationale to a single mention (Phase 2a already justifies the helper script; the Gotchas restatement can be trimmed).

Consider moving the two full output-format templates and the metric field table into a references/ file, keeping SKILL.md as an overview with a one-level-deep pointer — this would lift progressive_disclosure toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and dense with actionable specifics, but includes duplicated guidance (the ≥5-meeting and ≥3-per-group thresholds appear in both Phase 2b and Gotchas; the speaker-identification caveat repeats Phase 0) and recurring justificatory asides ('LLMs are bad at exact token counting') that could be tightened; matches the 'mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation' anchor rather than 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: copy-paste bash pipelines, a bundled helper script invoked with exact flags, a field-by-field output table, exit-code handling (exit 3 recovery), and concrete output-format templates covering common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear phased sequence (Phase 0→1→2a/2b→3) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Require exit status 0', 'Require both sides of the pipeline to exit successfully'), error-recovery feedback loops (exit code 3 → re-run with discovered labels), and threshold checklists for the batch operation; validation is present so the batch cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with a clearly signaled one-level-deep bundle reference (scripts/mirror_metrics.py, wired via $MINUTES_SKILL_ROOT) that exists on disk; held at 4 rather than 5 because most reference material (output templates, metric definitions, gotchas) is inlined in SKILL.md rather than split into separate reference files, and the skill exceeds 50 lines so the simple-skill exception does not apply.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

95%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, highly specific description with comprehensive trigger-term coverage and a clear what/when structure. Its only weakness is second-person phrasing ('Use this', 'your own behavior') where third-person voice would be cleaner.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete analysis capabilities ('talk-time ratio, filler words, hedging language, monologue length, energy patterns' plus win/loss behavior comparison), which is comprehensive coverage; held at 4 rather than 5 because the description uses second-person voice ('Use this whenever the user says...', 'your own behavior'), which the rubric penalizes by reducing specificity by one.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (self-coaching analysis of own meeting behavior across named metrics) and 'when' ('Use this whenever the user says...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive coverage of natural phrases users would actually say ('how did I do', 'review my last meeting', 'mirror', 'coach me', 'where am I weak', 'talk time', 'am I improving', 'feedback on me') including synonyms and paraphrases, matching the anchor for full keyword coverage.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (mirroring the user's own meeting behavior) with distinct triggers and explicit framing ('the rare skill that gives the user a mirror to their own habits'); minimal conflict risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
silverstein/minutes
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.