CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/performance-feedback-author

Build-an-X workflow that drafts evidence-based performance feedback and review input for testers using the Center for Creative Leadership's SBI model (Situation - Behavior - Impact, extended to SBII with Intent) - pulling every Behavior statement from verifiable work artifacts (bug reports authored, test cases and automation merged, review comments, charter session logs) rather than impressions or adjectives. Produces the written feedback artifact itself - not the agenda for the recurring conversation where it is delivered, not a team capability map (kept deliberately separate from performance data), and not a scorecard for external candidates. Use when a QA manager owes someone specific feedback this week, or when writing review input or a promotion case for review season.

74

Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable and well-sequenced with explicit checkpoints, and its single-file organization is clean. The main drag on token efficiency is the Overview's conceptual explanation of the SBI/SBII model, which largely reiterates what Claude already knows.

Suggestions

Tighten the Overview: replace the detailed SBI/SBII concept explanation and the CCL anxiety/defensiveness aside with a one-line pointer to the reference, keeping only the QA-specific framing inline.

Move the full worked examples into a short references file and keep only one condensed example inline, reducing the body length while preserving the template shape.

Consider a one-line 'Quick start' at the top summarizing the four steps so the workflow shape is visible before the detail.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The Overview explains the SBI/SBII model and CCL's anxiety/defensiveness claims that Claude largely already knows, and the body runs long; it is mostly efficient and signal-dense but could be tightened by trimming the conceptual exposition.

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides concrete, copy-ready worked SBI(I) templates (filled with real bug IDs and dates), an artifact-class to location table, and an anti-pattern-to-fix table — fully actionable instruction rather than abstraction.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear Step 1 to Step 4 sequence is given with explicit validation checkpoints — the 'no Behavior statement without a linkable artifact' rule and the [NO EVIDENCE YET] gap markers act as feedback loops.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

It is a single-file skill with no bundle directories, organized into clear sections (Overview, When to use, Steps, Anti-patterns, Limitations, Hand-off targets, References) and only one-level external references, which fits a well-structured simple skill.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

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.

A strong, third-person description that is specific, trigger-rich, and explicit about both capability and use conditions while actively disambiguating from adjacent skills. Its only weakness is mild verbosity from the parenthetical artifact list and the negative-scoping clauses.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions ('drafts evidence-based performance feedback and review input', 'pulling every Behavior statement from verifiable work artifacts', 'Produces the written feedback artifact itself') rather than vague claims.

3 / 3

Completeness

It answers both what (drafts and produces the written feedback artifact) and when, with an explicit 'Use when a QA manager owes someone specific feedback this week, or when writing review input or a promotion case' trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces natural terms a user would actually say — 'performance feedback', 'review input', 'promotion case', 'review season', 'QA manager' — covering common variations.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicit negatives ('not the agenda…, not a team capability map…, not a scorecard for external candidates') carve a clear niche and steer away from sibling skills, making wrong-skill triggering unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents