Skip to content

feat: improve skill scores for claude-cortex#24

Open
rohan-tessl wants to merge 1 commit intoNickCrew:mainfrom
rohan-tessl:improve/skill-review-optimization
Open

feat: improve skill scores for claude-cortex#24
rohan-tessl wants to merge 1 commit intoNickCrew:mainfrom
rohan-tessl:improve/skill-review-optimization

Conversation

@rohan-tessl
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@rohan-tessl rohan-tessl commented Mar 31, 2026

Hey @NickCrew 👋

I ran your skills through tessl skill review at work and found some targeted improvements.

image

Here's the full before/after:

Skill Before After Change
constructive-dissent 33% 84% +51%
template-skill-enhanced 22% 69% +47%
ux-review 40% 84% +44%
vibe-security 43% 84% +41%
executing-plans 43% 74% +31%

This PR is intentionally scoped to five skills — the lowest scorers in the repo. More skills can be improved in follow-ups or via automated review on future PRs.

Changes made

All five skills:

  • Added "Use when" activation clause to frontmatter descriptions (quoted string format)
  • Replaced keywords with tags where applicable
  • Added structured ## Workflow sections with numbered steps

template-skill-enhanced:

  • Replaced all placeholder content ([Pattern Name], example_code_here()) with concrete skill-creation guidance
  • Restructured as a usable template guide rather than an abstract skeleton
  • Added validation step referencing cortex skills validate

constructive-dissent:

  • Converted four intensity levels into a concise decision table
  • Consolidated challenge methodologies into a step-by-step workflow
  • Trimmed redundant example phrases while preserving the framework

ux-review:

  • Added inline code example for accessible ARIA patterns
  • Restructured multi-perspective analysis into a cleaner workflow
  • Added cross-reference to ui-design-aesthetics for scope clarity

executing-plans:

  • Expanded from a sparse outline to a full workflow with verification loop
  • Added bash example for verification sequence
  • Added best practices section covering task hygiene and blocker handling

vibe-security:

  • Added structured workflow (identify attack surface → apply checks → verify headers → test)
  • Added attack surface trigger table for quick domain identification
  • Cross-referenced defense-in-depth for infrastructure security scope

Honest disclosure — I work at @tesslio where we build tooling around skills like these. Not a pitch - just saw room for improvement and wanted to contribute.

Want to self-improve your skills? Just point your agent (Claude Code, Codex, etc.) at this Tessl guide and ask it to optimize your skill. Ping me - @rohan-tessl - if you hit any snags.

Thanks in advance 🙏

Hey @NickCrew 👋

I ran your skills through `tessl skill review` at work and found some targeted improvements. Here's the full before/after:

| Skill | Before | After | Change |
|-------|--------|-------|--------|
| constructive-dissent | 33% | 84% | +51% |
| template-skill-enhanced | 22% | 69% | +47% |
| ux-review | 40% | 84% | +44% |
| vibe-security | 43% | 84% | +41% |
| executing-plans | 43% | 74% | +31% |

This PR is intentionally scoped to five skills — the lowest scorers in the repo.
More skills can be improved in follow-ups or via automated review on future PRs.

Changes made:
- Added "Use when" activation clauses to frontmatter descriptions (quoted string format)
- Replaced keywords with tags where applicable
- Added structured Workflow sections with numbered steps
- Replaced placeholder content in template-skill-enhanced with concrete guidance
- Expanded executing-plans from sparse outline to full workflow with verification loop
- Added attack surface trigger table and structured workflow to vibe-security
- Added inline ARIA code example and cross-references to ux-review
- Consolidated constructive-dissent intensity levels into decision table

Honest disclosure — I work at @tesslio where we build tooling
around skills like these. Not a pitch - just saw room for improvement
and wanted to contribute.
@rohan-tessl rohan-tessl marked this pull request as ready for review March 31, 2026 10:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant