CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

coherence-reviewer

Reviews planning documents for internal consistency -- contradictions between sections, terminology drift, structural issues, and ambiguity where readers would diverge. Spawned by the document-review skill.

66

Quality

81%

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%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.

An exemplary instruction-only skill body: lean, concrete, and precisely scoped, with numeric confidence thresholds and a sharp exclusion list that keeps the reviewer on-task. The only substantive gap sits in the frontmatter description, not the content.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — terse sections ('What you're hunting for', 'Confidence calibration', 'What you don't flag') with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: numeric confidence thresholds ('HIGH (0.80+)', 'MODERATE (0.60-0.79)', 'Below 0.50: Suppress entirely'), an explicit instruction ('Flag with `autofix_class: auto` and group by logical theme, keeping original R# IDs'), and testable criteria ('The test is whether a reader could be confused'). For an instruction-only skill this is copy-paste-ready direction.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A single-purpose skill with an unambiguous action sequence: hunt for the listed finding types, calibrate confidence, suppress below 0.50, and apply the explicit exclusion list. Per the simple-skill guideline this can score 5, and no destructive or batch operations exist to require validation checkpoints.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

At under 50 lines with no need for external references, the well-organized sections (hunt / calibrate / exclusions) fully satisfy progressive disclosure; no bundle files exist and none are needed.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Description

63%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.

A specific, well-scoped description that clearly states what the skill does, weakened by the absence of any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance and thin coverage of natural trigger phrases. Its invocation context ('Spawned by the document-review skill') partially compensates but does not replace explicit triggers.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when' clause (e.g., 'Use when reviewing planning or design documents for internal consistency, contradictions, or terminology drift') to lift completeness above its cap.

Include natural trigger phrases and synonyms users would actually say — 'consistency check', 'review the plan', 'spec review' — to improve trigger term coverage.

Briefly distinguish this reviewer from sibling personas (e.g., 'Reviews internal consistency only; other reviewers handle feasibility, security, and completeness') to reduce overlap risk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates four concrete finding types ('contradictions between sections, terminology drift, structural issues, and ambiguity where readers would diverge'), matching the comprehensive multi-action anchor rather than the fewer-actions example at score 4.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and enumerated, but there is no 'Use when...' clause; 'Spawned by the document-review skill' conveys an invocation context, not explicit trigger guidance, so the completeness cap of 3 applies.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'planning documents' and 'internal consistency' are relevant keywords, but natural user variations ('review the plan', 'consistency check', 'spec review') are absent, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (internal-consistency review of planning documents) is mostly distinct, but the description does not differentiate it from sibling reviewer personas, giving minor overlap risk — between the 'mostly distinct' and 'clear niche' anchors.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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.

Validation — 13 / 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.