CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

writing-shape

Writing, exploit——把原始素材塑造成文章,一段一段地推进。

52

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/in-progress/writing-shape/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 tight, well-structured instruction skill with a clear sequenced loop, concrete conversational moves, and explicit format-tradeoff guidance, all assuming Claude's competence. It is slightly held back by mild redundancy and implicit rather than explicit write-step validation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains basic concepts — but a few passages (e.g. the repeated grounding rationale and several reformulations of the same pull-from-pile idea) could be trimmed slightly.

4 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, executable guidance: a numbered 6-step loop, verbatim conversational moves to use, and explicit format tradeoffs to argue with the user; minor gaps are the absence of a concrete file-handling example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

"The loop" lays out a clear sequenced 6-step process with conversational feedback checkpoints (push back, cut weak paragraphs, gap-naming), and "Writing rhythm" adds a re-read-before-write checkpoint; it falls just short of 5 because explicit validation/retry around the write step is implicit rather than spelled out.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single self-contained SKILL.md with clear section headers and well-signaled in-page anchor links; with no bundle files and slightly over 50 lines it is well-organized but doesn't hit the automatic-5 simple-skill bar.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

38%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 states a clear core action but is generic in its domain keyword, lacks any "Use when..." trigger guidance, and risks overlapping with other writing skills. It reads more as a tagline than a trigger-ready skill description.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user has raw material (notes, fragments, a transcript) and wants it shaped into a finished article."

Replace the generic "Writing" lead with concrete triggers users would say — "draft an article", "turn notes into a post", "shape raw material into a piece".

Tighten third-person voice and list 2-3 specific actions (draft openings, ground concepts, grow paragraph-by-paragraph) to improve specificity and distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the writing domain and one concrete action — "把原始素材塑造成文章,一段一段地推进" (shape raw material into an article, advancing paragraph by paragraph) — but covers only a single action rather than a comprehensive set.

3 / 5

Completeness

It conveys a clear "what" (shaping raw material into an article) but provides no "when" guidance at all; per the rubric, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Only the generic keyword "Writing" is present; there are no natural trigger phrases a user would actually say (no mention of "article", "draft", "rewrite", or any equivalent of a "Use when..." clause), so it sits below the midpoint.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Writing" is extremely broad and would overlap heavily with sibling writing skills (the body itself references ideation/grilling sessions), giving it high conflict risk with many similar skills.

2 / 5

Total

10

/

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.

Validation16 / 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.