crafting-effective-readmes

Use when writing or improving README files. Not all READMEs are the same — provides templates and guidance matched to your audience and project type.

1.12x

Quality

64%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

92%

1.12x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./dist/plugins/crafting-effective-readmes/skills/crafting-effective-readmes/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

62%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill provides a well-structured workflow for README creation with clear audience-aware guidance and good project type categorization. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete output examples (no sample README snippets or before/after comparisons) and missing bundle files that the skill references. The process-oriented approach is solid but would benefit from actionable examples showing what good output looks like.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete example of a generated README section (e.g., a sample Description + Usage for an OSS project) to make the skill more actionable.

Include the referenced template files (templates/oss.md, etc.) and supporting files (section-checklist.md, style-guide.md) in the bundle to fulfill the progressive disclosure promises.

Remove or condense the 'Step 1: Identify the Task' table — Claude can infer the task type from user context without needing this enumerated.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Generally efficient but includes some unnecessary scaffolding. The tables and step-by-step process add structure but the 'Always Ask' step and some of the task-specific questions feel like padding for what Claude could infer. The content respects Claude's intelligence mostly but could be tighter.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides structured guidance with clear questions to ask and tables mapping project types to templates, but lacks concrete examples of actual README output. No executable code or copy-paste ready content — the templates are referenced but not provided in the bundle, and the guidance remains at the process/checklist level rather than showing concrete before/after examples.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 3-step process is clearly sequenced with distinct paths for creating, adding, updating, and reviewing. Each task variant has explicit sub-steps, and the final 'Always Ask' step serves as a validation checkpoint. For a non-destructive content generation task, this level of workflow clarity is appropriate and well-structured.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References to templates (oss.md, personal.md, etc.) and supporting files (section-checklist.md, style-guide.md, using-references.md) are clearly signaled and one level deep, which is good. However, no bundle files were provided, meaning all referenced files are missing — the skill promises progressive disclosure but can't deliver on it. The main content itself is appropriately scoped as an overview.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 'Use when' trigger clause and identifies its domain well, but lacks specificity in the concrete actions it performs. It uses second person ('your audience') which is a minor style issue, and could benefit from more natural trigger terms and more detailed capability listing to stand out from general documentation skills.

Suggestions

Add specific concrete actions like 'generates badges, creates table of contents, structures installation/usage/API sections, adds contributing guidelines'

Include more trigger term variations such as 'README.md', 'project documentation', 'repo description', 'open source docs'

Replace second person 'your audience' with third person phrasing like 'matched to the target audience and project type'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (README files) and mentions some actions ('writing or improving', 'provides templates and guidance'), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'generate badges, create table of contents, add installation instructions, structure API documentation sections'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (provides templates and guidance matched to audience and project type for README files) and 'when' ('Use when writing or improving README files'). The 'Use when...' clause is present and clear.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes 'README' as a natural keyword users would say, but misses common variations like 'README.md', 'project documentation', 'repo docs', 'getting started guide'. The terms 'templates' and 'guidance' are somewhat relevant but not primary trigger terms users would use.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	README files are a fairly specific niche, but the description could overlap with general documentation skills or technical writing skills. The mention of 'templates and guidance matched to your audience and project type' adds some distinctiveness but could still conflict with broader documentation tools.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: softaworks/agent-toolkit
Commit: 3027f20

Reviewed: 4 months ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.