CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

grill-with-docs

一个用来打磨计划或设计的持续追问式访谈,并在过程中创建文档(ADRs 和词汇表)。

59

Quality

68%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/engineering/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 a maximally lean composition skill that delegates to two named skills with a clear order, and it is fully concise with no structural overhead. Its only weakness is the absence of any guidance on how the grilling interview and the domain-modeling documentation interleave or merge.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a single sentence — "调用两次 Skill 工具,分别指定 `grilling` 和 `domain-modeling`" — with zero padding or explanation of things Claude already knows; every token earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Actionability

The instruction is concrete and executable (tool name, both target skill names, and the count 'twice'), but it leaves a minor gap: no guidance on how the two sub-skills' outputs are combined. This fits 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than the fully self-sufficient level-5 anchor, and nothing is vague or pseudocode-like to justify a 3.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is unambiguous ('twice… respectively' fixes the order grilling then domain-modeling) and the operation is non-destructive so no validation cap applies, but there is no checkpoint or guidance on integrating the interview results with the generated docs, placing it just below the explicit-checkpoint level-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and inlines nothing that belongs in a separate file; per the simple-skill guideline, this organization earns the top score with no bundle files required.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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 clearly states what the skill does in third person and names concrete artifacts (ADRs, glossary), but it entirely lacks a 'when to use' trigger clause and natural trigger-term coverage. All dimensions land at the middle anchor: adequate what, weak when.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when the user wants to pressure-test, refine, or challenge a plan or design, or asks for ADRs or a glossary') to raise completeness above the cap of 3.

Include natural trigger phrases and synonyms users would actually say — such as 'refine my plan', 'review this design', 'challenge assumptions', 'architecture decision records', 'define terms' — to improve trigger-term coverage.

List the concrete actions more comprehensively (e.g., iterating on weaknesses found, recording each decision as an ADR, building a shared glossary) so specificity reflects full coverage rather than 1-2 actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description "一个用来打磨计划或设计的持续追问式访谈,并在过程中创建文档(ADRs 和词汇表)" names the domain (plan/design refinement) and one or two concrete actions (persistent-questioning interview, ADR/glossary creation), matching the anchor for naming domain plus 1-2 concrete actions without being comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

It has a clear 'what' (a questioning interview that refines plans/designs and produces ADRs and a glossary) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "打磨计划" (polish plan), "设计" (design), "ADR", and "词汇表" (glossary) are relevant, but common natural variations a user would say (e.g., review my plan, challenge my design, pressure-test this design) are missing, which matches the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of a grilling-style interview with ADR/glossary creation is a fairly distinct niche, but without explicit triggers it could still overlap with general planning, design-review, or documentation skills, fitting the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
vinvcn/mattpocock-skills-zh-CN
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.