CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

sniff-test-portfolio

Add-on to the sniff-test skill that looks across many initiatives on a portfolio Kanban for board-level patterns — duplicate/shadowing initiatives, WIP clustering, stale-status sweeps, experiment scope creep, and portfolio risk balance (Explore/Discovery vs. Build & Deliver split). Use when reviewing a whole board or portfolio, prepping a sponsor/ELT portfolio review, or deciding where the portfolio is over- or under-invested. For sniffing a single initiative, use sniff-test. For the operating model behind the board rather than the board itself, use portfolio-to-product-shift-coach. If the question is broad — AI pilots with no clear return, or "where do we start" — run ai-activity-to-impact first; it finds the constraint and routes here.

Quality

90%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 instruction-only skill body: novel pattern definitions with smell/move pairs, explicit ordering rules, and a verification checklist, with no padding of concepts Claude already knows. The main weaknesses are a workflow scattered across four sections instead of one ordered procedure, an unspecified method for computing the risk-balance split, and minor chattiness in the feed-me section and the pattern-3 anecdote.

Suggestions

Define how the risk-balance 'share of capacity' is computed (initiative count vs. effort/spend weighting) so the Explore/Discovery vs. Build & Deliver split is reproducible rather than judged.

Collapse the workflow into one ordered procedure (feed inputs → choose scan approach → stale-status sweep → check the six patterns → run Quality Gates → emit the chosen output mode) so the sequence doesn't have to be reconstructed from Prerequisite, Rules, and Quality Gates.

Tighten the lowest-density passages: shorten the pattern-3 anecdote caveat ('treat it as an anecdote...not a benchmark') and the first-person 'How to Run Me — What to Feed Me' framing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what a Kanban or portfolio is, and the patterns/rules/gates all carry novel information. Minor trimming opportunities exist: the 'How to Run Me — What to Feed Me' first-person framing and the pattern-3 anecdote caveat ('treat it as an anecdote to calibrate against, not a benchmark') are chattier than needed. Mostly efficient with minor over-explanation, so anchor 4 rather than the lean-every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance dominates: each pattern has a Smell and a Move ('merge, make one a sub-issue', 're-cut to the riskiest assumption, or graduate it honestly'), plus a scan-approach selection table and three defined output modes. Minor executable gaps remain: how to compute the 'share of capacity' risk-balance split (initiative count vs. effort/spend) is unspecified, and the stale-status sweep procedure is delegated wholesale to the external base skill. Mostly actionable with minor gaps, so 4 rather than fully-executable 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Ordering constraints are explicit ('A stale-status sweep comes before any risk-balance claim', 'Run (or assume) base sniff-test reads... first') and the Quality Gates section is a verification checklist including a retry loop ('correct the stages, then re-read the balance'). However, the end-to-end sequence must be assembled from Prerequisite, Scan Approaches, Rules, and Quality Gates rather than one ordered procedure. Clear sequence with most checkpoints present, so 4 rather than the fully-checkpointed 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the inline content (the six patterns, rules, output modes, gates) is the core payload that belongs in SKILL.md. External references — '../sniff-test/SKILL.md' and its 'references/', and '../../CREDITS.md' — are one level deep and clearly signaled in a dedicated References section. Sections are well-organized and easy to navigate, matching the clear-overview anchor rather than the minor-organization-gaps level below. (The referenced sibling skill is not present in this review sandbox, but it is a cross-skill dependency, not a buried or nested reference.)

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

An exemplary description: it states the what with five named concrete capabilities, gives explicit when-to-use triggers with synonyms and natural user phrasing, and disambiguates three neighboring skills with explicit routing. No over-claims, fluff, or voice violations (third-person/imperative throughout).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names five concrete detection capabilities — 'duplicate/shadowing initiatives, WIP clustering, stale-status sweeps, experiment scope creep, and portfolio risk balance (Explore/Discovery vs. Build & Deliver split)' — with comprehensive coverage of what the skill does. It fits the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with no coverage gaps, so it is not the level below.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (the five board-level patterns) and when ('Use when reviewing a whole board or portfolio, prepping a sponsor/ELT portfolio review, or deciding where the portfolio is over- or under-invested') with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the top anchor exactly, not the 'when could be more explicit' level below.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasing is covered comprehensively, including synonyms and quoted questions: 'reviewing a whole board or portfolio', 'prepping a sponsor/ELT portfolio review', 'deciding where the portfolio is over- or under-invested', 'AI pilots with no clear return', 'where do we start'. No natural term in this domain is plausibly missing, so it is not the level below.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (cross-initiative portfolio patterns) and explicitly routes away three adjacent skills: 'For sniffing a single initiative, use sniff-test', 'use portfolio-to-product-shift-coach', and 'run ai-activity-to-impact first'. Minimal conflict risk, matching the top anchor rather than the minor-overlap level below.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

yyeret/ai-impact

Path

skills/sniff-test-portfolio/SKILL.md

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.