CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

uinaf/skill-audit

Audit existing skills with Tessl scoring, trigger-coverage checks, repo conventions, or quick experiential feedback from a recent task. Use when revising skills, triaging weak activation, or turning observed skill guidance failures into scoped repo edits.

91

1.04x
Quality

90%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

98%

1.04x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

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, actionable skill that provides clear workflows for auditing skills using Tessl and manual review. Its strengths are concrete CLI commands, explicit sequencing with validation loops, and good separation of concerns (handoffs section). Minor weaknesses include some slightly verbose sections and uncertainty about whether referenced bundle files actually exist to support the progressive disclosure claims.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Principles' section—items like 'Evidence beats hunches' and 'Audit only the requested scope' are general advice Claude can infer; keep only principles that encode non-obvious project-specific decisions.

Verify and include the referenced bundle files (references/scorecard.md, references/best-practices.md) so the progressive disclosure structure is complete and reviewable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but some sections could be tightened—e.g., the 'Principles' and 'Handoffs' sections add moderate value but include some obvious guidance ('Evidence beats hunches'). The Tessl introduction paragraph is useful context but slightly verbose.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides concrete CLI commands (`npx tessl skill review --json skills/<name>`), specific file paths to check, concrete examples of weak vs. stronger metadata, and explicit failure signs to look for. The workflow steps are specific and executable.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced (steps 1-6) with explicit validation checkpoints—run Tessl first to get a baseline score, audit multiple dimensions, then synthesize changes and rerun Tessl to verify improvement. The 'Quick experiential feedback mode' provides an alternative path with clear criteria for when to use it. The output section defines what 'done' looks like.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references `references/scorecard.md` and `references/best-practices.md` appropriately, and the References section is well-organized. However, no bundle files were provided to verify these references exist, and some content in the workflow steps (like the audit dimensions in steps 2-5) could potentially be offloaded to the referenced scorecard rather than being inline. The structure is reasonable but the split between inline and referenced content isn't fully optimized.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

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.

This is a strong, well-crafted description that clearly defines a specific niche (skill auditing), lists concrete actions, provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use' guidance, and includes natural trigger terms. The inclusion of negative boundaries ('Do not use to verify general application code') is a notable strength that reduces conflict risk. The description is concise yet comprehensive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Tessl scoring', 'metadata and trigger-coverage checks', 'repo conventions', and 'skill-authoring best practices'. These are concrete, identifiable audit activities rather than vague abstractions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (audit skills with scoring, metadata checks, conventions, best practices) and 'when' (creating/revising skills, triaging weak self-activation, comparing against repo guidance). Also includes explicit 'Do not use' guidance, which further clarifies boundaries.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes strong natural trigger terms users would say: 'creating or revising a skill', 'weak self-activation', 'AGENTS.md', 'CLAUDE.md', 'repo rules', 'skill guidance', 'audit'. These cover multiple natural phrasings a user might employ when needing this skill.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche: auditing skills specifically. The 'Do not use' clause explicitly excludes general code verification and unrelated docs, reducing conflict risk. Terms like 'Tessl scoring' and 'skill-authoring best practices' are very domain-specific.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents