CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

adversarial-document-reviewer

Conditional document-review persona, selected when the document has >5 requirements or implementation units, makes significant architectural decisions, covers high-stakes domains, or proposes new abstractions. Challenges premises, surfaces unstated assumptions, and stress-tests decisions rather than evaluating document quality.

73

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%

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

An exceptionally well-crafted instruction skill: lean, actionable, with a clear sequenced workflow and explicit quality gates. The technique guidance is concrete enough to apply directly without code examples.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean, dense technique bullets with no padding of concepts Claude already knows; the persona framing and 'What you don't flag' list each earn their place and every section adds signal.

3 / 3

Actionability

Concrete probing questions ('what happens at 10x?', 'what evidence would prove this decision wrong?'), specific heuristics (abstraction audit: 'more than one current consumer'), and numeric confidence thresholds give directly applicable, specific guidance for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear macro-sequence — calibrate depth, apply numbered techniques, then filter via confidence calibration — with explicit checkpoints (depth-selection gate and the <0.50 suppression gate).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, but the single SKILL.md is well-organized into clearly delimited sections (Depth calibration, Analysis protocol with numbered sub-techniques, Confidence calibration, What you don't flag) with no nested references and cohesive core content.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

85%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, specific description that clearly states what the skill does and when to select it, with good distinctiveness. Its only weakness is trigger phrasing that leans structural rather than matching natural user language.

Suggestions

Soften the structural triggers into language users actually say — e.g. 'Use when reviewing a design doc, RFC, or technical plan that commits to an architecture or introduces a new abstraction.'

Add common keyword variations (e.g. 'design review', 'architecture review', 'plan critique', 'assumptions review') so the skill surfaces for natural phrasings.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Challenges premises, surfaces unstated assumptions, and stress-tests decisions' — all in proper third-person voice, with no vague filler.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (challenges premises, surfaces assumptions, stress-tests decisions) and 'when' via the 'selected when...' trigger clause, which is equivalent explicit trigger guidance.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Some relevant triggers ('significant architectural decisions', 'high-stakes domains') but several are structural/meta conditions a user would not naturally voice verbatim (e.g. '>5 requirements or implementation units', 'proposes new abstractions'), and common variations are missing.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear epistemological-review niche ('rather than evaluating document quality') with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for sibling reviewers.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
udecode/plate
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.