Interpreting tessl Review Output

Score Breakdown

Average Score = (Description Score + Content Score) / 2

Description Score (out of 100%)

• Specificity (0-3 points): Concrete actions listed
• Trigger Term Quality (0-3 points): Natural keywords present
• Completeness (0-3 points): What AND when specified
• Distinctiveness (0-3 points): Clear niche, low conflict risk

Content Score (out of 100%)

• Conciseness (0-3 points): Token efficiency, no verbosity
• Actionability (0-3 points): Executable examples present
• Workflow Clarity (0-3 points): Clear steps with validation
• Progressive Disclosure (0-3 points): Good structure, references used

Validation Checks

All validation checks must pass (no errors):

• skill_md_line_count: Must be ≤ 500 lines
• frontmatter_valid: YAML must be valid
• name_field: Name must be present and valid
• description_field: Description required, proper length
• description_voice: Must use third person
• description_trigger_hint: Should have "Use when..." clause
• metadata_version: metadata.version should exist
• body_present: Body content must exist
• body_examples: Should include code examples
• body_output_format: Should specify outputs
• body_steps: Should have numbered workflow

Warnings don't block packaging but suggest improvements.

Suggestion Categories

High Priority (often mentioned first):

• Add missing metadata dictionary
• Add explicit trigger hints to description
• Add workflow structure with numbered steps
• Add output format specification

Medium Priority (improve scores):

• Add specific concrete actions to description
• Include executable code examples
• Add validation checkpoints
• Remove verbose explanations

Low Priority (polish):

• Improve progressive disclosure
• Condense repetitive sections
• Add more natural trigger terms