technical-writing

Write, edit, review, or audit user-facing documentation for the eve repository. Use for changes under docs/, documentation tied to eve APIs or CLI behavior, docs work based on Slack or support feedback, and requests to make eve docs clearer, more natural, or less AI-patterned while verifying claims against current source, tests, CLI help, public releases, and repository conventions.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

78%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.

A well-structured, eve-specific skill body that routes efficiently to real reference files and closes with a validating checklist. It is held back only slightly by a few restated guardrails and by leaving the core editing workflow to the references rather than sequencing it inline.

Suggestions

Trim restated guardrails in "Avoid common failures" that duplicate guidance already implied by the verification hierarchy, to lift conciseness toward fully efficient.

Add one short worked example of a minimal doc edit (before/after) so the actionability guidance is copy-paste ready, not just rule-based.

Inline a brief 3-4 step editing sequence in the body so the core workflow is legible without opening a reference, then keep the reference for depth.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean, imperative, eve-specific rules with no generic concept explanations Claude already knows; a few bullets in "Avoid common failures" restate concepts and could be tightened, keeping it just below fully efficient.	4 / 5
Actionability	Highly concrete guidance with exact names (defineAgent, docs/meta.json) and a real command (pnpm docs:check); for an instruction-only skill this is mostly executable, though no worked example of an actual doc edit is shown.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	"Finish the change" is a clear 7-step checklist with explicit validation (re-read, verify claims, search contradictions, run docs:check), but the primary writing/editing workflow is delegated to reference files rather than fully sequenced inline.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clean overview routes to six real one-level-deep reference files, each clearly signaled with the condition for when to read it (e.g. "For wording, voice, or AI-pattern concerns, read references/prose-quality.md"); all referenced files exist and navigation is easy.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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 high-quality description that crisply states capabilities, gives explicit "Use for" trigger guidance tied to natural user phrasing, and carves out a distinct eve-docs niche. The only minor gap is missing a few synonym trigger terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — "Write, edit, review, or audit user-facing documentation" — plus verification against source, tests, CLI help, and releases, giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill does.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (write/edit/review/audit eve docs while verifying claims) and when ("Use for changes under docs/", docs tied to APIs/CLI, Slack/support feedback, clarity requests) with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Strong natural trigger phrases ("changes under docs/", "eve APIs or CLI behavior", "Slack or support feedback", "less AI-patterned") that users would plausibly say; a few common synonyms are absent, keeping it just below comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoped tightly to "user-facing documentation for the eve repository" with eve-specific triggers (eve APIs, eve CLI, docs/), creating a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 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: vercel/eve
Path: .agents/skills/technical-writing/SKILL.md
Commit: e0ad9a0

Reviewed: 5 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.