CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cast

Casting personas: rapid generation from diverse inputs, registry-based persistence and lifecycle, data-driven evolution, inter-agent sync. Not for UI walkthroughs (Echo) or user research (Field).

Quality

66%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./cast/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

60%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 a well-organized, unusually concrete orchestration spec with explicit pipelines, thresholds, and decision rules, though it is repetitive and its research-justification prose could be trimmed. Its critical defect is that every one of its ~16 reference files is missing from the bundle, making the advertised progressive-disclosure structure hollow.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced files (reference/*.md and _common/*.md) with the skill, or inline the essential content and delete the dangling links — as delivered, none of the ~16 referenced paths resolve.

Deduplicate collaboration/routing information: it currently appears in the CAPABILITIES_SUMMARY comment, Trigger Guidance, the Collaboration table, and the Reference Map; keep one canonical table and link to it.

Compress the research-justification prose in the Never list to one-line rules with a single pointer to reference/persona-bias-audit.md and _common/AI_PERSONA_RISKS.md, and add explicit validate-and-retry feedback loops to the CONJURE/EVOLVE pipelines.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and prescriptive rather than tutorial-like, but collaboration information is repeated four times (the CAPABILITIES_SUMMARY comment, Trigger Guidance, the Collaboration section, and the Reference Map), and the Never list carries extended research justifications ("caricature effect", "bias laundering" prose) that could be one line plus a pointer. This matches anchor 3 — mostly efficient but with unnecessary repetition that could be tightened — rather than 4, where only minor trimming would be needed.

3 / 5

Actionability

For a process skill, guidance is highly concrete: exact thresholds (confidence 0.40 ask-first, ≥5% drift trigger, ≥15% divergence with n≥50), numeric decay rates, source-weight tables, commands (/Cast conjure), and the registry path .agents/personas/registry.yaml. It stops short of anchor 5 because the executable detail (schemas, payload shapes, adapter formats) is deferred to reference files that are not present in the bundle, leaving minor gaps in what can actually be executed from this file alone.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Every operating mode has an explicit pipeline (e.g. CONJURE: INPUT_ANALYSIS -> DATA_EXTRACTION -> PERSONA_SYNTHESIS -> VALIDATION -> REGISTRATION), backed by a phase table with required actions, key rules, and read targets, plus VALIDATION phases and ask-first gates for risky operations. Anchor 4 fits (clear sequence, most checkpoints present) because explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loops for error recovery are not spelled out, which anchor 5 requires.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The in-body structure is well signaled (Reference Map, per-recipe "Read First" column, one-level references), but the bundle contains no reference/, references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories — all ~16 referenced files (reference/persona-model.md, reference/registry-spec.md, _common/AI_PERSONA_RISKS.md, etc.) are dangling, so the navigation leads nowhere and the actual detailed content is inaccessible. Structure without deliverable references lands at anchor 2 (minimal effective structure) rather than 3, since the split content simply does not exist in the bundle.

2 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

57%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 has a clear niche and good conflict disambiguation, but its capability phrasing is compressed and jargon-heavy, its natural-language trigger coverage is thin, and it lacks any positive "use when" guidance. Adding the concrete inputs and an explicit trigger clause would lift specificity, trigger-term quality, and completeness together.

Suggestions

Add an explicit positive trigger clause, e.g. "Use when creating, updating, auditing, or packaging user personas from research, analytics, code, or feedback data."

Replace generic phrases with the concrete inputs and actions already documented in the body, e.g. "Generate personas from README, docs, code, tests, analytics, and interview handoffs; register them in a lifecycle registry; evolve them from behavioral and feedback data."

Include the natural synonyms users would say ("user personas", "persona registry", "update/refresh personas") to improve trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists four capability areas ("rapid generation from diverse inputs", "registry-based persistence and lifecycle", "data-driven evolution", "inter-agent sync"), but phrases like "diverse inputs" and "inter-agent sync" are generic, and the concrete inputs (README, docs, code, analytics) and actions are never named. This matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than 4, which expects several specific actions with only minor gaps.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("Casting personas" plus a four-part capability list), but there is no positive "Use when..." clause — only a negative carve-out ("Not for UI walkthroughs (Echo) or user research (Field)"). Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3, which is also the best anchor fit (clear what, when missing or only weakly implied).

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("personas", "generation", "evolution", "lifecycle"), but common natural phrases users would say — "create a persona", "user personas", "persona registry", "update personas" — and their synonyms are missing. Anchor 3 ("some relevant keywords but missing common variations") fits; anchor 4's "good keyword coverage" is not reached.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (persona casting/lifecycle) and the description explicitly disambiguates its two closest neighbors ("Not for UI walkthroughs (Echo) or user research (Field)"), which exceeds anchor 4's "minor overlap risk" and matches anchor 5's "clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk".

5 / 5

Total

14

/

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

simota/agent-skills

Path

cast/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.