Generate eval scenarios from repo commits, configure multi-agent runs, execute baseline + with-context evals, and compare results — the full setup pipeline before improvement begins
Overall
score
90%
Does it follow best practices?
Validation for skill structure
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 around evaluation pipeline management and multi-agent benchmarking. It uses third person voice correctly, provides concrete actions, and includes an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms. The combination of git-based scenario generation with agent evaluation creates a distinctive niche.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Generate eval scenarios from repo commits', 'configure multi-agent runs', 'execute baseline + with-context evals', and 'compare results'. These are distinct, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (generate eval scenarios, configure runs, execute evals, compare results) AND when with explicit 'Use when...' clause covering evaluation pipelines, benchmarks, agent performance comparison, and test scenario generation. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'evaluation pipelines', 'benchmarks', 'agent performance', 'models', 'test scenarios', 'git history'. Good coverage of terms across evaluation and testing domains. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly specific niche combining evaluation/benchmarking with multi-agent systems and git-based scenario generation. The combination of 'eval scenarios from repo commits' and 'multi-agent runs' creates a distinct trigger profile unlikely to conflict with general testing or git skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%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, highly actionable skill with excellent workflow clarity and concrete executable commands throughout. The main weakness is verbosity—the skill could be tightened by removing explanatory text about what evals are and condensing some of the user-facing message templates. The inline nature of all content is acceptable given the workflow-heavy nature, but some reference material could be externalized.
Suggestions
Trim explanatory prose like time expectations and 'what this does' sections—Claude can infer these from context
Consider moving the agent/model comparison table and example output formats to a separate REFERENCE.md file to reduce main skill length
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some unnecessary verbosity, such as explaining what eval runs do and time expectations that could be more concise. The phase structure adds overhead, though the content itself is mostly actionable. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable bash commands throughout with specific flags, example outputs, and copy-paste ready code. Each step has concrete commands like `tessl scenario generate`, `tessl eval run`, and `tessl eval compare` with all necessary parameters. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with 7 clearly sequenced phases. Includes explicit validation checkpoints (verify download, check existing scenarios, poll for completion), error recovery (retry failed evals), and decision points with user confirmation at each stage. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-structured with clear phases and sections, but everything is inline in one large document. References to companion skill `eval-improve` are mentioned but the skill itself could benefit from splitting detailed agent/model tables or example outputs into separate reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i tessl-labs/eval-setupReviewed
Table of Contents