doc-review

Reviews documentation for factual accuracy

Quality

57%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/doc-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%

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

The skill body is concise and well-structured with a clear review sequence, but its actionability and workflow clarity suffer because the actual fact-checking method is deferred to CHECKING.md and EXAMPLES.md, which are missing from the bundle. Dangling references also break progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Provide the missing CHECKING.md and EXAMPLES.md files, or inline the concrete fact-checking method so the skill is actionable without dangling references.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g. "Re-verify each finding against the source before reporting") to lift workflow clarity.

Replace goal-style steps ("Make sure that...") with concrete, executable checks for each target (claims, examples, links).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and direct with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line states a concrete review task, matching the score-3 "lean and efficient" anchor rather than the more verbose score-2 anchor.	3 / 3
Actionability	The instructions name concrete check targets (claims about toolhive, examples, links) but describe goals ("Make sure that...") rather than providing the actual fact-checking method, which is deferred to referenced files, matching the score-2 "some concrete guidance but incomplete" anchor.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear four-step sequence is present, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints within the checking process (the only review is a manual human pass at the end), matching the score-2 anchor with sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body appropriately signals one-level-deep references to CHECKING.md and EXAMPLES.md, but neither file exists in the bundle, so navigation is broken; this caps the score below the well-organized score-3 anchor despite good signaling.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 concise and uses correct third-person voice, but it is generic: it lacks a "Use when..." trigger clause, multiple concrete actions, and natural trigger-term variations. This caps completeness and trigger quality at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, e.g. "Use when reviewing toolhive documentation for factual accuracy, examples, or broken links."

Enumerate concrete actions (e.g. fact-check claims, verify examples, validate links) to lift specificity from a single action to multiple concrete actions.

Include natural user-facing trigger terms such as "fact-check", "review docs", or "verify documentation".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase "Reviews documentation for factual accuracy" names a domain (documentation) and one specific action with a purpose (review for factual accuracy), but does not list multiple concrete actions, matching the score-2 anchor rather than the multi-action score-3 anchor or the vague score-1 anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill does (reviews documentation for factual accuracy) but has no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"documentation" and "factual accuracy" are relevant keywords, but there are no common natural variations a user would say (e.g. "fact-check", "review docs"), so it falls short of the good-coverage score-3 anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is somewhat specific to documentation review but could still overlap with general documentation or editing skills, matching the score-2 anchor rather than a clearly-niched score-3.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
relative_links	Relative link issues: 2 missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: stacklok/toolhive
Path: .claude/skills/doc-review/SKILL.md
Commit: cd373ec

Reviewed: 2 days 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.