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".

73

Quality

89%

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

85%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 is highly actionable and well-sequenced with strong validation checkpoints and a clearly-signaled bundled script. The main weakness is conciseness — some rationale and thresholds are stated more than once across the phases and Gotchas.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the 'LLMs are bad at token counting' rationale and the ≥5-meeting / ≥3-per-group thresholds — state each once in Gotchas and reference it from the phases.

Consider moving the long metrics field table into a short reference block or the script's --help output to shorten the inline body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with concrete commands and a compact metrics table, but contains repeated rationale (e.g., 'LLMs are bad at exact token counting' appears in both Phase 2a and Gotchas) and restated guidance (pattern-mode ≥5 threshold in Phase 2b and again in Gotchas) that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable: exact bash pipelines, the bundled script invocation with the --self flag, a JSON output-field table, and copy-paste output-format templates covering single-meeting and pattern modes.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear Phase 0→3 sequence with explicit validation ('Require exit status 0', 'Require both sides of the pipeline to exit successfully'), error-recovery feedback (exit code 3 handling), and minimum-data thresholds for the batch metric runs — matching the anchor 5 checklist pattern.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single one-level-deep bundled script (scripts/mirror_metrics.py) is clearly signaled and invoked; the body serves as a well-organized overview with sectioned phases and gotchas, appropriate for a single-script skill.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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 description: it states concrete capabilities, includes many natural trigger phrases, and explicitly covers both what and when. The only blemish is heavy second-person voice, which costs one specificity point per the rubric.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description in third person (e.g., 'Analyzes the user's own meeting behavior...') to satisfy the voice guideline and recover the specificity point.

Tighten the closing editorial sentence ('This is the rare skill that gives the user a mirror...') — it is persuasive but adds length without new trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete capabilities ('talk-time ratio, filler words, hedging language, monologue length, energy patterns' plus tagged outcome correlation), which is comprehensive; reduced from 5 to 4 because the description is written in second person ('your own behavior'), which the rubric penalizes by one specificity point.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (self-coaching analysis of own behavior with named metrics) and 'when' ('Use this whenever the user says...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor 5 example.

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 — matches the anchor 5 example.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — a personal mirror on the user's own meeting behavior — with distinct triggers ('mirror', 'how did I do', 'coach me') and minimal overlap with other meeting 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.