CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

chisel

Converting a supplied prompt into an executable specification: detects vague quality/quantity/explanation/style/design/technical/judgment wording, role and persona theater, and self-contradiction, then replaces each with a numeric bound, an observable behavior, or a scorable criterion — with a per-term ledger of what changed and what stayed open. Don't use for AI system design, RAG, or eval harnesses (Oracle), PRD/SRS authoring (Scribe), spec conformance verification (Attest), or SKILL.md normalization (Gauge).

Quality

78%

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 ./chisel/SKILL.md
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.

This is a dense, high-discipline instruction skill: an explicit phase pipeline with per-phase checks, a blocking exit-checklist gate, a complete disposition taxonomy, and fixed output shape leave little ambiguity about how to execute. The two real costs are the triplicated routing/collaboration metadata (including a ~30-line HTML comment that duplicates a later section) and heavy dependence on reference files that are not shipped in this bundle.

Suggestions

Collapse the routing/collaboration metadata to one place: drop the CAPABILITIES_SUMMARY / COLLABORATION_PATTERNS / BIDIRECTIONAL_PARTNERS HTML comment (or the Collaboration + Overlap Boundaries sections), since the same partner and routing data appears three times in the body.

Ship or verify the `reference/*.md` files the workflow points to — the Exit Checklist's eight items, the lexicon's seven classes, and the translation patterns all live in files absent from this bundle, so the 'Read' pointers currently dead-end.

Inline at least the names of the eight Exit Checklist items in SKILL.md, since EMIT is blocked on them but the canonical list is only reachable through a reference file that cannot be confirmed to exist.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body never explains concepts Claude already knows and most lines are rules or pointers, but routing/collaboration data is stated three times: the ~30-line CAPABILITIES_SUMMARY / COLLABORATION_PATTERNS / BIDIRECTIONAL_PARTNERS HTML comment duplicates the Collaboration and Overlap Boundaries sections, and the Trigger Guidance 'Route elsewhere' list repeats the Overlap Boundaries table. This is 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary [content] or could be tightened' (anchor 3); not 4 because an entire duplicated section is more than 'minor instances that could be trimmed', and not 2 because there is no padded filler or over-explanation anywhere else.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: the Dispositions table gives 'Fires when / Produces' per case, the Numeric Licensing Cascade is an ordered decision procedure with concrete renderings ("aim for 3–5 paragraphs", "cover only the main claim; drop supporting detail"), Output Requirements fixes the four-section deliverable and its order, and failure modes are exemplified ("'Write clearly' → 'write in an easy-to-read style' is a no-op dressed as a fix", "'within exactly 237 characters' is never correct"). Specific examples cover the common cases — the instruction-skill analog of copy-paste-ready code.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The SCAN → CLASSIFY → TRANSLATE → RECONCILE → EMIT table defines focus, required checks, and files to read per phase, and the Exit Checklist is an explicit blocking validation gate: "scored pass/fail with the offending line cited, run before every EMIT. Any failure blocks delivery". Error-recovery paths exist (Ask First conditions, `BLOCKED` return instead of guessing in the `brief` recipe), and per-recipe behavior notes define each workflow deviation — clear sequence, explicit validation, and a checklist for a complex process (anchor 5).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure and signaling are strong: one-level-deep references with a 'Read' column in the phase table, a 'Read First' column in Recipes, and a dedicated Reference Map giving 'read this when...' purpose per file. Not 5: the operational detail the workflow depends on (lexicon, translation patterns, exit-checklist scoring) is deferred to `reference/*.md` and cross-agent files (`oracle/reference/...`, `_common/...`), none of which are present in the bundle being evaluated, so the pointers cannot be verified end-to-end — anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps' is the best fit.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

67%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 is specific, honest about scope, and exceptionally well de-conflicted against sibling skills, but it omits any affirmative trigger guidance. A user who needs this skill would not naturally say 'executable specification' or 'persona theater'; the natural trigger phrases exist in the body but never surface in the description where trigger-matching actually happens.

Suggestions

Add an affirmative 'Use when...' clause, e.g. "Use when a prompt's vague terms ('high quality', 'concise', 'as appropriate', 'latest') must become checkable rules, when a persona line needs dissolving into capabilities, or before a prompt is reused, shared, or templated" — this lifts the completeness cap of 3.

Surface the natural user phrasings from the body's Output Routing ("make this prompt explicit", "vague prompt", "what's ambiguous here", "is this prompt precise enough") in the description itself so trigger matching works without loading the body.

Include common synonyms users would say — "ambiguous", "contradictory instructions", "tighten this prompt" — alongside the technical vocabulary to broaden natural-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "detects vague quality/quantity/explanation/style/design/technical/judgment wording, role and persona theater, and self-contradiction", "replaces each with a numeric bound, an observable behavior, or a scorable criterion", and "a per-term ledger of what changed and what stayed open". Detection classes, translation forms, and the output artifact are all specified, so anchor 4's 'minor gaps in coverage' does not apply.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and concrete (detect vague wording across named classes, replace with bound/behavior/criterion, emit a per-term ledger), but there is no affirmative 'Use when...' clause — 'when' is only negatively implied via the "Don't use for ... (Oracle) ... (Scribe) ... (Attest) ... (Gauge)" carve-outs. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3; it is not 4 because the 'when' is not stated positively anywhere in the description.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ("vague ... wording", "prompt", "self-contradiction") but they lean technical; the natural phrases a user would actually say — "make this prompt explicit", "specify this prompt", "what's ambiguous here" — appear only in the body's Output Routing, not the description, and common synonyms like "ambiguous" or "tighten this prompt" are missing. This matches anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations') rather than 4, where only 'a few natural terms' would be absent.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is narrow (hardening the language of a supplied prompt) and the description explicitly de-conflicts against four named sibling skills: "Don't use for AI system design, RAG, or eval harnesses (Oracle), PRD/SRS authoring (Scribe), spec conformance verification (Attest), or SKILL.md normalization (Gauge)". Clear niche with distinct boundaries and minimal conflict risk — anchor 5.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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: 2 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

simota/agent-skills

Path

chisel/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.