CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

format-specific-extraction

Format-specific document extraction workflows

52

Quality

57%

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 ./.ai-rulez/skills/format-specific-extraction/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 an exemplary internal-reference skill: dense with non-obvious, codebase-specific facts (security budget threading, feature gates, registry invariants like 'do not hand-edit EXT_TO_MIME') organized into scannable per-format sections. Its only minor weakness is that some workflows stop at 'add tests' without an explicit verification checkpoint.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a lean codebase map with zero concept explanations — e.g. 'the engine takes an owned Vec<u8>, not a slice' and 'The Office path does not use ZipBombValidator'. Every token is repo-specific fact Claude could not know otherwise, matching 'Lean and efficient; every token earns its place'.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete functions, file paths, and API calls throughout ('ZipBombValidator::new(limits).validate(&mut archive)? before any extraction', exact config member names, real helper locations). It falls short of anchor 5's copy-paste-ready code because much guidance is pointer-style with occasional pipeline shorthand ('ZIP archive → SecurityBudget → XML parsing').

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Each format section is a numbered sequence with a validation gate (ZipBombValidator before any extraction, SecurityBudget threading), and the 'Adding a New Format' checklist is an ordered 8-step procedure including tests. It is not 5 because steps like 'Add tests with fixture files' lack an explicit verify/retry checkpoint after registration.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Each per-format section is a concise overview pointing one level deep to concrete files ('See extractors/docx.rs', the Common Helpers table with exact locations), plus clearly signaled sibling skills. No bundle files exist to be misorganized, and navigation between sections is trivial — matching 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

28%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 is a terse domain label rather than a capability statement. It fails to list any concrete actions, formats, or trigger conditions, so both 'what' and 'when' are underspecified and it risks firing for the wrong extraction skill.

Suggestions

List the concrete capabilities and formats, e.g. 'Extracts text, tables, and metadata from PDF, Office (DOCX/PPTX/ODT), archive (ZIP/TAR/7z/GZIP), structured text, and email formats'.

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when extracting content from these file formats or when the user mentions PDFs, DOCX, or archive extraction'.

Name specific trigger keywords and file extensions (PDF, .docx, .eml, .7z) so the skill is distinguishable from generic document-handling skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("document extraction workflows") but lists no concrete actions or formats, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is above 1 because a real domain is named, but below 3 because no specific capability is stated.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is vague ('extraction workflows' with no actions named) and there is no 'Use when...' trigger clause at all. It does not reach 3 because even the 'what' lacks concrete actions; it is above 1 because a recognizable domain is named.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Only the generic keyword 'document extraction' is present; no format names (PDF, DOCX, ZIP), extensions, or natural user phrases. This matches 'One or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say', not 1 (which requires jargon-only or entirely generic language).

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Format-specific' gestures at a niche but no formats are named, so it would overlap with any general PDF/Office/archive extraction skill — 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'. A 4 would require named formats or clearer niche triggers.

3 / 5

Total

9

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
xberg-io/xberg
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.