CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

golden-pdf-ch

Use when testing chapter categorization

Quality

45%

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 ./tests/golden/phase2/pdf_chapters/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

35%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 auto-generated documentation index cluttered with padding (statistics, quality scores, a broken long code example) that obscures its actual value as a reference navigator. Real reference files exist and are signaled, but heavy inlining and non-functional examples limit both conciseness and actionability.

Suggestions

Remove the auto-generated padding (Documentation Statistics, Code Quality scores, repeated Total Pages, emoji headers) and the broken long_example; keep only what aids navigation.

Replace the junk code examples with a brief, honest statement of what the reference files contain, or move all examples into the reference files.

Lead with a short 'How to use' workflow: state the single action (open references/index.md, then the chapter file for the topic) before the chapter listing so the lookup path is unambiguous.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is padded with auto-generated statistics, repeated 'Total Pages: 4', quality scores (e.g. 'Quality: 9.5/10'), emoji headers, and a bloated truncated long_example() spanning x0..x37, yielding several unnecessary padded sections characteristic of anchor 2 rather than the severe concept-explanation of anchor 1.

2 / 5

Actionability

Actionable guidance is minimal: the code examples are non-functional ('pip install thing', a truncated broken long_example) and the real guidance reduces to high-level 'see reference files' pointers, fitting anchor 2's 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints' better than anchor 3's 'some concrete guidance'.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A Navigation section maps chapters to reference files, but no explicit lookup workflow is sequenced and the 'how to use' guidance is buried amid statistics and broken examples, matching anchor 3 (sequence present but checkpoints/structure implicit) rather than the clearly sequenced anchor 4.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References are real and clearly signaled (references/section_p1-p2.md, section_p3-p3.md, section_p4-p4.md, index.md — all verified present, one level deep), but chapter overviews, key concepts, code examples, and statistics are inlined duplicating the reference files, matching anchor 3's 'content that should be separate is inline'.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

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 minimal and unbalanced: it provides a trigger ('Use when') but omits what the skill actually does and uses only generic action language. It is distinguishable only by its narrow domain, not by clear capability statements.

Suggestions

Add a concrete 'what' statement before the trigger, e.g. 'Indexes and navigates scraped PDF documentation by chapter. Use when testing chapter categorization or looking up golden_pdf_ch topics.'

Replace the generic verb 'testing' with specific actions users would recognize (e.g. 'categorize', 'navigate', 'look up chapter structure').

Include natural trigger keywords and synonyms a user would actually say, such as 'chapter structure', 'PDF documentation lookup', or file/context cues.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('chapter categorization') but the only action ('testing') is generic and no concrete capabilities are listed, falling below the midpoint of anchor 3 which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

Only a 'when' clause ('Use when testing chapter categorization') is present with no clear statement of what the skill does, exactly matching the anchor 2 example 'Use when working with documents'; it does not rise to anchor 3 which requires a clear 'what'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'testing chapter categorization' offers one niche keyword plus a generic verb; it is not phrasing a user would naturally say and lacks synonyms or file extensions, matching the 'one or two generic keywords; missing natural phrases' anchor rather than anchor 3.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'chapter categorization' is a somewhat specific niche, but the generic 'testing' framing leaves overlap risk with other testing skills, matching anchor 3 rather than the more clearly distinct anchor 4.

3 / 5

Total

9

/

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

yusufkaraaslan/Skill_Seekers

Path

tests/golden/phase2/pdf_chapters/SKILL.md

Revision

5b5d8df

Reviewed

Table of Contents

DiscoveryImplementationValidation

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.

Claim skill