gepetto
Creates detailed, sectionized implementation plans through research, stakeholder interviews, and multi-LLM review. Use when planning features that need thorough pre-implementation analysis.
Overall
score
81%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
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.
This description has good structure with explicit 'what' and 'when' clauses, earning full marks for completeness. However, it lacks specificity about concrete deliverables and misses common trigger terms users might naturally use when requesting planning help. The description could better differentiate itself from general planning or documentation skills.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete outputs (e.g., 'Creates technical specifications, architecture diagrams, task breakdowns, and risk assessments')
Expand trigger terms to include natural variations like 'project plan', 'technical spec', 'design document', 'architecture planning', or 'feature breakdown'
Clarify what makes this distinct from general planning - emphasize the unique multi-LLM review process or stakeholder interview methodology in the trigger clause
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (implementation planning) and some actions ('research, stakeholder interviews, multi-LLM review'), but 'detailed, sectionized implementation plans' is somewhat vague about what concrete outputs or actions are performed. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Creates detailed, sectionized implementation plans through research, stakeholder interviews, and multi-LLM review') and when ('Use when planning features that need thorough pre-implementation analysis') with an explicit trigger clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'implementation plans', 'planning features', and 'pre-implementation analysis', but misses common variations users might say like 'project plan', 'technical spec', 'design doc', 'architecture plan', or 'roadmap'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The focus on 'implementation plans' and 'multi-LLM review' provides some distinction, but 'planning features' could overlap with general project management or documentation skills. The unique 'stakeholder interviews' and 'multi-LLM review' aspects help but aren't strongly emphasized as triggers. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, highly actionable skill for orchestrating complex multi-step planning workflows. Its strengths are exceptional workflow clarity with explicit state management, resume capability, and validation checkpoints, plus excellent progressive disclosure to referenced protocols. Minor verbosity in banner templates and some explanatory text prevents a perfect conciseness score.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some verbose elements like the full banner templates and detailed file listings that could be condensed. The step-by-step format is appropriate for the complexity but some explanatory text could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides highly concrete, executable guidance with specific file paths, exact tool calls (Task with subagent_type), precise file naming conventions, and copy-paste ready banner templates. The workflow is fully specified with clear inputs and outputs for each step. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with 17 clearly numbered steps, explicit validation checkpoints (step 12 user review, step 16 file verification), a resume state table for error recovery, and clear dependency ordering. The feedback loop for external review integration is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Appropriately structures content with the main workflow in SKILL.md and detailed protocols in clearly-signaled one-level-deep references (research-protocol.md, interview-protocol.md, external-review.md, section-index.md, section-splitting.md). Navigation is clear and references are well-organized. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
87%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 14 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
Total | 14 / 16 Passed | |
- 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.