tdg-personal/messages-ops
Evidence-first live messaging workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to read texts or DMs, recover a recent one-time code, inspect a thread before replying, or prove which message source was actually checked.
79
79%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Risky
Do not use without reviewing
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description that clearly articulates specific capabilities, provides explicit 'Use when' triggers with natural language terms, and occupies a distinct niche. The description is concise yet comprehensive, covering both what the skill does and when it should be selected. The only minor weakness is that 'ECC' may be opaque to some users, but the surrounding context makes the purpose clear.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: reading texts/DMs, recovering one-time codes, inspecting threads before replying, and proving which message source was checked. These are distinct, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Evidence-first live messaging workflow for ECC' with specific capabilities) and when ('Use when the user wants to read texts or DMs, recover a recent one-time code, inspect a thread before replying, or prove which message source was actually checked'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'texts', 'DMs', 'one-time code', 'thread', 'replying', 'message source'. These are terms users would naturally use when needing this functionality. 'ECC' is somewhat jargon-like but the surrounding terms compensate well. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with a clear niche: evidence-first messaging workflow specifically for ECC, with unique triggers like 'one-time code', 'prove which message source', and 'inspect a thread'. Unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured procedural skill that clearly defines its scope and provides a useful output template. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete, executable guidance (no actual tool calls, commands, or code for accessing any message surface) and moderate redundancy across guardrails, pitfalls, and verification sections. Adding specific tool invocations and consolidating overlapping constraints would significantly improve it.
Suggestions
Add concrete tool invocations or commands for at least one message surface (e.g., how to query local iMessage via a specific helper, or how to access X DMs), so the skill moves from descriptive to executable.
Consolidate the overlapping content in Guardrails, Pitfalls, and Verification into fewer, non-redundant sections to improve token efficiency.
Add explicit error-recovery feedback loops in the workflow (e.g., 'If the message surface is blocked at step 1, report the blocker per step 4 and stop' or 'If code not found in recent window, expand time window by X before reporting exhausted').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy—guardrails, pitfalls, and verification overlap significantly (e.g., 'do not claim retrieval without naming the source' appears in multiple forms). The skill stack section adds tokens for cross-references that could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides structured guidance on what to do conceptually (resolve thread, read before drafting, search for codes) but lacks any concrete commands, tool invocations, or executable examples. It describes a process rather than giving copy-paste-ready instructions for actually accessing messages on any surface. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four workflow steps are clearly sequenced and logically ordered, and the output format template is helpful. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops—e.g., no 'if step 1 fails, do X' beyond the auth blocker mention in guardrails. For a task involving potentially blocked surfaces, this gap is notable. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references other skills (email-ops, connections-optimizer, etc.) for handoff, which is good progressive disclosure. However, all content is inline in a single file with no links to deeper reference material, and the skill stack section could be better signaled with brief descriptions of when each handoff actually triggers. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents