vamp

Survey the project and choose what to play next

Quality

60%

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 ./skills/vamp/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

86%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 concise, well-structured, and actionable for a simple read-only survey skill, scoring near the top across content dimensions. Its only weakness is the lack of an explicit output format and validation checkpoint, though these are not strictly required for this non-destructive task.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and efficient with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every line (numbered steps, category list, closing instruction) earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	It gives concrete, specific guidance—named inputs (README.md, directories, files), three named categories with examples, and a concrete '2-3 suggestions per category' directive; it is instruction-only but actionable, with only minor gaps in output format.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The three steps are clearly sequenced (review structure → identify gaps → present suggestions); this is a read-only, non-destructive task so the validation cap does not apply, though explicit output-format guidance is missing.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines, requires no external references, and is well-organized with an Overview heading and structured list, meeting the simple-skill exception for a top score.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

33%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 conveys a clear purpose but is too generic and lacks explicit trigger guidance, capping its completeness and distinctiveness. It would benefit from concrete action verbs and a 'Use when...' clause.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user asks what to play or work on next, or wants a project survey').

Replace generic verbs with specific concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Audits README, directories, and CI config; ranks next steps by impact').

Tighten the niche so it is distinguishable from general code-review or planning skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Survey the project') but the actions are minimal and generic ('choose what to play next'), matching the anchor for naming the domain with minimal/generic actions.	2 / 5
Completeness	It states a clear 'what' but provides no 'when'; per the guideline a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, so it cannot score above.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It offers only one or two generic keywords ('Survey the project', 'what to play next') and omits the natural phrases a user would say, with no trigger guidance.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is very broad and could overlap with many similar survey/review skills, fitting the high overlap-risk anchor.	2 / 5
	Total	9 / 20 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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: tslateman/duet
Path: skills/vamp/SKILL.md
Commit: 5647baf

Reviewed: 3 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.