writing-guidelines

Review docs/prose for Writing Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my docs", "check writing style", "audit prose", "review docs voice and tone", or "check this page against the writing handbook".

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/writing-guidelines/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is writing-guidelines in vercel-labs/agent-skills

Quality

Content

53%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 content is a compact, well-sectioned overview that correctly delegates the rule set to a fetched source, but it suffers from a duplicated workflow, no concrete output example, and no validation/error-recovery checkpoints for a batch review operation.

Suggestions

Consolidate the "How It Works" and "Usage" workflows into a single sequenced procedure to remove the duplicated fetch/read/apply/output steps.

Add a validation or feedback checkpoint for the batch review (e.g., confirm every fetched rule was applied, and handle a failed WebFetch by re-trying or alerting the user) so workflow clarity can exceed 3.

Include one concrete example of the expected `file:line` finding output so the output format is unambiguous without relying solely on the fetched content.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the "How It Works" and "Usage" sections repeat nearly the same four-step workflow, and the fetch instruction is stated twice, which is tightening-worthy rather than merely minor.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides some concrete guidance (the exact source URL, the WebFetch tool, the `file:line` output format, and the no-files fallback) but defers the actual rule set and a concrete example output to fetched content, leaving key execution details incomplete.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps are clearly sequenced, but this is a batch (multi-file) review operation with no validation or feedback checkpoints and no handling of a failed guidelines fetch, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the batch-operation rule.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is under 50 lines with no bundle files and is organized into clear, well-labeled sections, but the duplicated workflow across two sections is a minor organization gap that keeps it just below a clean score-5.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

90%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 strong description: it explicitly states what the skill does and when to use it with a rich set of natural trigger phrases and a clear niche. The only weakness is that it lists a single concrete action rather than several, leaving specificity slightly below the top anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain and a single concrete action ("Review docs/prose for Writing Guidelines compliance") but does not enumerate multiple specific concrete actions, matching the score-3 anchor rather than the several-actions score-4 anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both "what" (review docs/prose for compliance) and "when" (an explicit "Use when..." clause with concrete trigger phrases), matching the score-5 anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes multiple natural trigger phrases a user would actually say ("review my docs", "check writing style", "audit prose", "review docs voice and tone", "check this page against the writing handbook"), covering synonyms and variations comprehensively as the score-5 anchor requires.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The Writing Guidelines / voice-and-tone niche with distinctive triggers is clearly separable from general document skills, giving minimal conflict risk as in the score-5 anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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: zhukunpenglinyutong/desktop-cc-gui
Path: .agents/skills/writing-guidelines/SKILL.md
Commit: a595e2a

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.