CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

uinaf/docs

Update repo documentation and agent-facing guidance such as AGENTS.md, README.md, docs/, specs, plans, and runbooks. Use when code, skill, or infrastructure changes risk doc drift or when documentation needs cleanup or restructuring. Do not use for code review, runtime verification, or boot/readiness infrastructure setup.

95

1.06x
Quality

95%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

98%

1.06x

Average score across 4 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

92%

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

The body is lean, highly actionable with real verification commands, and follows a clear sequenced workflow with an explicit validation step. Its one weakness is progressive disclosure: three reference files are signaled but absent from the bundle, so the offloaded detail is not actually reachable.

Suggestions

Add the missing references/documentation.md, references/specifications.md, and references/structuring.md files to the bundle so the signaled deep content is actually reachable, or remove the inline references and inline the necessary guidance.

For the destructive 'delete or archive stale docs' step, add an explicit verify-before-delete checkpoint (e.g. confirm a doc is truly stale via rg before removing) to strengthen the validation feedback loop around that specific action.

Consider stating in the References section that those files are the canonical home for templates/tables, so it is unambiguous that detail lives there rather than inline.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and instructional (terse principle bullets, bulleted workflow steps, a compact Output footer) and does not explain concepts Claude already knows, fitting the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor rather than the padded level 2.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable verification commands (e.g. `rg -n "old/path|stale-command" ...`, `test -e <path-from-docs>`, the symlink normalization test) plus a copy-paste diff example, matching the 'fully executable commands; copy-paste ready' anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence (Audit -> Update routing -> Update deep docs -> Clean up drift -> Validate reality) with an explicit validation checkpoint and concrete checks; validation is present rather than missing, so the destructive-ops cap at 2 does not apply and it is above the implicit-checkpoint-only level 2.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled and one level deep ([references/documentation.md], [references/specifications.md], [references/structuring.md]), but none of those files actually exist in the bundle, so the disclosed structure is not realized and navigation is broken — better organized than a monolithic level 1, but not the fully-realized level 3.

2 / 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 concretely states capabilities, gives explicit natural-language triggers for both when to use and when not to use, and carves out a distinct niche from neighboring skills. It is concise without fluff or over-claims.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names concrete actions ("Update", "cleanup or restructuring") tied to a specific enumerated set of artifacts (AGENTS.md, README.md, docs/, specs, plans, decisions, runbooks), matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor rather than the vaguer level 2.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Update repo documentation and durable agent-facing artifacts...") and when ("Use when..."), mirroring the level-3 example; the "Do not use for..." exclusion further sharpens scope, so it is not the implied-only level 2.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The "Use when code, skill, or infrastructure changes risk doc drift or when documentation needs cleanup or restructuring" clause surfaces natural terms a user would say (documentation, doc drift, cleanup, restructuring); not the jargon-only level 1 nor the partial level 2.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear docs niche plus an explicit "Do not use for code review, runtime verification, or boot/readiness infrastructure setup" exclusion distinguishes it from adjacent skills, satisfying the level-3 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 6 missing

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 12 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents