CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

story-review

多视角对抗式审查。full/lean 模式在已部署 reviewer agents 时并行 spawn;缺失/异常 agents 或 spawn 失败时自动降级 solo,参考文件不可读时使用内置 rubric fallback。触发方式:/story-review、/审查、「审查一下」「帮我审一下」。

Quality

80%

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/story-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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.

An exceptionally actionable and well-sequenced orchestration skill: every phase has concrete commands, schemas, severity definitions, and fallback paths, and the bundle's reference/script structure is real and clearly navigated. The costs are conciseness — an inline duplicated rubric pack and hard-pinned version numbers that will age — which also slightly dilutes an otherwise clean progressive-disclosure design.

Suggestions

Move the 内置审查基准包 to a dedicated reference file (e.g. references/embedded-rubric.md) and keep only a two-line pointer plus the rule that it must be used when paths are unreadable — this cuts ~45 lines from SKILL.md without losing the fallback behavior.

Externalize volatile version pins (「agents_version: 36」「ZCode 3.3.4」) into a small version-note reference or a single constants section so the rules referencing them do not silently rot across upgrades.

The Phase 0 per-platform agent-validation details (four platforms' frontmatter/TOML formats) could live in references/agent-validation.md, leaving Phase 0 with the decision logic and a pointer.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and telegraphic with essentially no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but it carries two real efficiency costs: a ~45-line inline 内置审查基准包 that duplicates references/quality-rubric.md content, and hard-pinned version numbers (「agents_version: 36」「ZCode 3.3.4」) embedded directly in rules, which is time-sensitive detail that will silently rot. This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient but includes content that could be tightened/moved) more than anchor 4's minor-trimmings-only bar.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete throughout: copy-pasteable script invocations (「node scripts/normalize-punctuation.js --check <正文文件...>」), an exact YAML findings schema with field-level rules, explicit S1–S4 severity definitions, a fixed-format 技术备注 output line, and literal fallback strings to write on each failure path. For an instruction-only skill this is the anchor-5 case — specific, executable guidance covering the common modes.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0–4 are explicitly sequenced with a mandatory precheck/degradation phase before any spawn, per-step validation (agent file existence + frontmatter/TOML parseability per platform, tool availability), and explicit feedback loops on failure (spawn failed → stop, re-run as solo; 「不要把部分成功的 Agent 结果当成 full/lean 结论」). This matches anchor 5's clear sequence with validation steps and error-recovery loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: the body is an orchestrator with clearly signaled one-level-deep markdown links to real bundle files (agent-prompts.md, solo.md, batch-review.md, style-resolution.md, review-tracking.md — all verified present), scripts invoked by concrete path, and deeper material (tracking-transaction.md) correctly gated behind error conditions in a reference file. The one gap versus anchor 5 is the ~45-line embedded rubric fallback pack inlined in the body; although its placement is justified as the offline fallback, it is bulk reference-style content living in SKILL.md.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

73%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.

A distinctive, well-triggered description with explicit invocation phrases and a clear niche, weakened by a 'what' that describes orchestration mechanics (spawn/降级/fallback) rather than the skill's actual capability — what it reviews and what the author gets. Adding one clause naming the review targets and deliverable would lift both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add one clause stating what is reviewed and what is produced, e.g. 「找出小说的结构、角色、文字与设定问题,给出带原文依据的修改建议」, before the orchestration details.

Add common trigger synonyms such as 「审稿」「看看有什么问题」 to the 触发方式 list to broaden natural-keyword coverage.

Trim the fallback mechanics (降级/rubric fallback) from the description — deployment plumbing belongs in the body, not the one-line capability summary.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names its domain clearly (「多视角对抗式审查」) and gives concrete mechanics (「已部署 reviewer agents 时并行 spawn」「自动降级 solo」「内置 rubric fallback」), but these are orchestration details rather than the review capability itself — it never says what is reviewed (novel structure/character/prose/setting) or what output is produced. It sits between anchor 3 (domain + 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) and anchor 4; the action list describes mode-switching plumbing instead of the skill's actual analytical actions, keeping it at 3.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and strong (「触发方式:/story-review、/审查、「审查一下」「帮我审一下」」), and a 'what' is present (「多视角对抗式审查」 with spawn/degrade mechanics), but the 'what' never states the review target (novels) or the deliverable (evidence-based revision suggestions). This matches anchor 4 — both present, with the 'what' side less explicit — rather than anchor 5, which requires both answered clearly and concretely.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural trigger phrases users would actually say — 「审查一下」「帮我审一下」, the bare verb 「审查」, and the slash commands /story-review、/审查 — which is good keyword coverage with concrete phrasing. It misses common synonyms such as 「审稿」「看看有什么问题」「帮我把关」, so it does not reach anchor 5's comprehensive coverage including all common variations.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (story/text review with its own reviewer-agent fleet and mode system) and triggers on distinctive phrases (「审查一下」「帮我审一下」, /story-review) that no adjacent skill (writing, deslop, setup) would claim. Conflict risk is minimal, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

zenstory-ai/oh-story-claudecode

Path

skills/story-review/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.