CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

nest

Designing LLM-optimized folder structures: audits and restructures directories for context efficiency, progressive disclosure, and prompt cache performance. Not for general repo structure (Grove).

55

Quality

61%

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 ./.archive/nest/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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 dense, highly actionable instruction set with an exemplary phase workflow and validation feedback loops for batch file operations. Its weaknesses are material duplication of dispatch information across three overlapping tables/sections and a reference layer that is well-signaled in prose but entirely absent from the bundle, so "Read First" guidance leads nowhere.

Suggestions

Ship the reference files the body points to (audit-checklist.md, layout-patterns.md, naming-guide.md, sharding-strategy.md, monorepo-topology.md, autorun-schema.md) or remove the citations — currently every "Read First" and Reference Map entry is a dangling path.

Collapse the Recipes table, Subcommand Dispatch behavior notes, and Output Routing table into a single dispatch section; the naming/sharding/monorepo details are stated twice in near-identical wording.

Move the inline naming conventions table and token-budget audit detail into their referenced files (naming-guide.md, audit-checklist.md) to tighten the overview and eliminate inline/reference duplication.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient (dense tables, imperative rules, no explanations of concepts Claude already knows), but dispatch information is stated two to three times — the Recipes table, the "Behavior notes per Recipe" bullets, and the Output Routing table repeat the same signals, and the naming/sharding/monorepo recipe cells inline ~50-word details restated in the behavior notes.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: specific glob/grep test patterns ("glob: **/*.config.*", "grep: router\|endpoint\|handler"), explicit token/line thresholds, a full directory tree template, and "git mv" batch execution with build checks. Minor gaps — the AUDIT phase offers test patterns but no actual commands to run.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The AUDIT → DIAGNOSE → DESIGN → APPLY → VERIFY workflow has per-phase purposes, activities, and read files, plus explicit validation checkpoints (before/after token cost measurement, "Verify build passes after each batch of moves") and a feedback loop ("halt APPLY and confirm recovery approach" on build/test failure) for its batch/destructive operations.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is structured as an overview with a Reference Map and well-signaled, one-level-deep references, but none of the cited files (reference/audit-checklist.md, reference/naming-guide.md, _common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md, etc.) exist in the bundle — every reference is dangling — and some inline content (the naming conventions table) duplicates what the missing references should carry.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 clearly states what the skill does and carves out a distinct niche with an explicit boundary, but it lacks any positive "Use when..." trigger guidance and relies on technical jargon rather than natural user phrases. It reads as a capability tag for a multi-agent system rather than a self-contained skill description.

Suggestions

Add a positive trigger clause, e.g. "Use when LLM agents struggle to find files, context costs are high, or a project needs LLM-aware directory design" — its absence currently caps completeness at 3.

Replace or supplement jargon terms ("progressive disclosure", "prompt cache performance") with natural user phrasing such as "file organization", "folder structure", "CLAUDE.md hierarchy", "repo restructure".

Enumerate one or two more concrete actions (e.g. CLAUDE.md hierarchy planning, file-naming audits) to move specificity from two verbs toward comprehensive coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"audits and restructures directories" names the domain ("LLM-optimized folder structures") plus exactly two concrete actions, matching the 1-2-action anchor; it omits other covered capabilities (CLAUDE.md hierarchy, naming, sharding, monorepo) that would warrant a 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("audits and restructures directories for context efficiency") but there is no "Use when..." trigger clause; "Not for general repo structure (Grove)" is an exclusion boundary, not a positive trigger, capping completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"folder structures" and "directories" are natural user terms, but "progressive disclosure" and "prompt cache performance" are technical jargon users rarely say, and common synonyms like "file organization" or "CLAUDE.md" are missing — some relevant keywords without full variation coverage.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (LLM-optimized directory design for context efficiency and cache performance) is distinct with an explicit carve-out for general repo structure, leaving only minor overlap risk with adjacent Grove/Hone skills; not a 5 because progressive-disclosure and CLAUDE.md territory overlaps skills it doesn't name.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
simota/agent-skills
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.