CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/exec-quality-narrative

Build-an-X workflow that turns already-computed quality data - weekly digests, KPI roll-ups, DORA delivery metrics, escape-defect trends, OKR grading - into an executive or QBR narrative structured by the Minto Pyramid Principle: governing answer first, MECE-grouped support beneath it, SCQA opening (Barbara Minto, The Pyramid Principle, ISBN 978-0273710516). Distinct from single-team digest computation (which computes the RAG digest from raw CI and tracker signals; this skill consumes such digests and writes the upward story), from portfolio-review aggregation (which aggregates teams into a portfolio review; this skill is the communication layer either output feeds), and from QA OKR authoring (forward-looking commitments; this skill narrates what happened and what it means). Use before a QBR, board update, or exec review when the data exists but the story does not.

68

Quality

85%

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

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

77%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.

A well-structured, actionable instruction skill with a clear sequenced workflow, validation checkpoints, and clean one-level-deep references. Its main weakness is conciseness: it over-explains framework concepts Claude already knows and carries time-sensitive citation dates that pad the token budget.

Suggestions

Tighten the Overview: drop the MECE gloss ('mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive') and the Wikipedia logical-grouping quote, which restate concepts Claude already knows; keep only the structural directive.

Move the 'fetched 2026-06-10' date stamps out of the References list (or into a clearly marked provenance note), since time-sensitive metadata outside a deprecated section penalizes conciseness.

Cite the ISBN once; it already appears in the frontmatter description and need not anchor the body's framework explanation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient, but the Overview explains Minto/MECE/SCQA concepts Claude already knows, repeats the ISBN citation, and carries time-sensitive 'fetched 2026-06-10' dates in References outside any deprecated/old-patterns section, all of which could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete per-step guidance (SCQA sample sentences, a MECE grouping recipe of outcomes/delivery/commitments/capacity-risk, a copy-paste markdown template in Step 5), a halt condition (UNCITED_INPUTS), and an anti-patterns fix table, with only minor gaps since the fully worked example lives in the reference file.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear five-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (halt on UNCITED_INPUTS in Step 1, go-back loop in Step 3 when the Answer sentence cannot be written) and an anti-patterns checklist serving as an error-recovery reference.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A clear overview body with well-signaled, one-level-deep references to references/dora-metrics.md and references/qbr-narrative-example.md, both verified to exist, with verbatim definitions and the worked example appropriately split out rather than inlined.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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, specific description that states concrete capabilities, gives an explicit natural-language trigger, and actively distinguishes the skill from three neighboring skills. The only soft spot is trigger-term breadth, where a few user-natural synonyms are missing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists concrete inputs (weekly digests, KPI roll-ups, DORA delivery metrics, escape-defect trends, OKR grading) and concrete structural actions (governing answer first, MECE-grouped support, SCQA opening), but the actions are organizational rather than discrete operations, leaving minor coverage gaps versus the comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (turns already-computed quality data into a Minto-pyramid exec narrative) and when (concrete 'Use before a QBR, board update, or exec review...' trigger phrase), matching the anchor-5 example.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a QA leader would say (QBR, board update, exec review, executive narrative, DORA, OKR) and a natural trigger clause ('Use before a QBR, board update, or exec review when the data exists but the story does not'), but a few natural synonyms (e.g. 'quality report', 'leadership review') are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Actively delimits the skill from single-team digest computation, portfolio-review aggregation, and QA OKR authoring, giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents

DiscoveryImplementationValidation