Conciseness

The skill is quite long (~300+ lines) and contains some verbosity, but most content is necessary given the complexity of the multi-phase workflow. Some sections like the bucket classification explanations and the 'Rules for good fixes' could be tightened. The run label section is thorough but slightly over-explained with many examples.

Actionability

Provides concrete CLI commands (tessl eval run, tessl eval view --last --json, jq queries, git commands), specific bucket classification thresholds (>=80%), and clear output templates. Minor gaps: some steps like 'Read the relevant plugin files' and 'Find the gap' are more procedural guidance than executable, and the diagnostic steps in Phase 2 are somewhat abstract.

Workflow Clarity

Excellent multi-phase workflow with clear sequencing (Phase 0 through 5), explicit validation checkpoints (lint after fixes in 3.3, re-run and verify in Phase 4), feedback loops (re-run → compare before/after → iterate on remaining gaps), and clear stopping criteria. Phase 0 handles multiple starting states with branching logic. The poll-for-completion and retry-on-failure steps are explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references companion skills (setup-skill-performance) and external reference files (phase3-fixtures-and-setup.md, phase5-view-results.md) which is good progressive disclosure design. However, no bundle files were provided, so we can't verify these references resolve. The SKILL.md itself is quite long and some content (like the detailed Phase 5 scenario quality review) could arguably be split into a separate reference file. The inline content is well-structured with clear headers but borders on monolithic.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions: run task evals, analyze results, diagnose failures, apply targeted fixes, re-run to verify improvements. This is comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities.

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (run evals, analyze results, diagnose failures, apply fixes, re-run) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing seven concrete trigger scenarios including debugging scores, fixing regressions, reviewing rubric quality, and improving agent performance.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes strong natural trigger terms like 'eval scores', 'failing criteria', 'regressed criteria', 'rubric quality', 'before/after score improvements', and 'agent performance'. Could benefit from mentioning specific file types or tool names, but covers most natural phrases a user would say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche around task evaluation debugging and improvement cycles. The specific terminology around eval criteria, rubric quality, score improvements, and plugin content editing makes it unlikely to conflict with general coding or testing skills.