CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

writing-guidelines

Review docs/prose for Writing Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my docs", "check writing style", "audit prose", "review docs voice and tone", or "check this page against the writing handbook".

63

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/writing-guidelines/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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

This skill is a thin wrapper that delegates nearly all substance to a remotely-fetched guidelines document. While the structure is clean and appropriately brief, the redundancy between 'How It Works' and 'Usage' wastes tokens, and the lack of any fallback behavior, example output, or error handling weakens both actionability and workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Merge the redundant 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections into a single workflow section to eliminate repetition.

Add a concrete example showing sample input (a file snippet) and expected output (the `file:line` format mentioned) so Claude knows exactly what to produce.

Add a fallback instruction for when the remote URL is unreachable (e.g., 'If fetch fails, inform the user and suggest checking network access or providing a local copy of the guidelines').

Include at least one or two key rules inline as a baseline, so the skill isn't entirely dependent on a remote resource that could change or become unavailable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is relatively brief but has some redundancy — the 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections largely repeat the same 4-step process. The explanation could be tightened by merging these sections.

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides a concrete URL to fetch and mentions using WebFetch, but the actual review logic is entirely delegated to the fetched remote content. There's no concrete example of output format, no example invocation, and no fallback if the URL is unreachable.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps are listed but there's no validation checkpoint — no guidance on what to do if the fetch fails, if the fetched content format changes, or how to handle files that can't be read. The workflow is straightforward but lacks error handling or verification steps.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

For a simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external bundle files, the content is well-organized into clear sections (How It Works, Guidelines Source, Usage). The delegation to the remote URL is a reasonable form of progressive disclosure for a single-purpose skill.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

89%

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

This is a solid description with excellent trigger terms and completeness, clearly answering both what the skill does and when to use it. The main weakness is that the 'what' portion is somewhat general—it says it reviews for compliance but doesn't enumerate the specific checks or actions performed. Overall, it would perform well in a multi-skill selection scenario.

Suggestions

Add 2-3 specific concrete actions to the 'what' portion, e.g., 'Checks tone, voice consistency, heading conventions, and terminology against Writing Guidelines.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('docs/prose') and a general action ('review for Writing Guidelines compliance'), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like checking tone, flagging passive voice, verifying heading style, etc.

2 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (review docs/prose for Writing Guidelines compliance) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple trigger phrases).

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes multiple natural trigger phrases users would actually say: 'review my docs', 'check writing style', 'audit prose', 'review docs voice and tone', 'check this page against the writing handbook'. These are varied and realistic.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The focus on 'Writing Guidelines compliance' and specific triggers like 'writing handbook', 'voice and tone', and 'audit prose' create a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with general editing or code review skills.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
vercel-labs/agent-skills
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.