agentleFS
Future-CXFuture-CX/AI-Architecture-Toolkit/skills/check-readability/SKILL.md

check-readability

Skill8 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Check content readability using Flesch-Kincaid-style metrics, sentence length, paragraph length, passive voice, and jargon density. Use when reviewing stakeholder-facing content, simplifying architecture documents, or when the user asks to check readability, reading level, passive voice, jargon, or plain language.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 7

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Check the repository root for Glossary.md.

    line 20
  2. Very specific:

    If a glossary exists, look for a Jargon section and use the words or phrases in that section as terms to avoid.

    line 21
  3. Very specific:

    If the checked document is a file and its top metadata table contains a Readability Score row, update that row with the rounded numeric …

    line 24
  4. Very specific:

    Do not output Grade estimate as a bare number.

    line 47
  5. Distinctive:

    Use plain Unicode status markers.

    line 49
  6. Distinctive:

    If the user provides a target audience, judge against that audience.

    line 57
  7. Distinctive:

    Always output the target audience, Flesch-Kincaid score, and grade estimate, even when the score is estimated.

    line 58
  8. Very specific:

    When updating a top-table Readability Score row, write only the numeric score value, such as 42.

    line 59
  9. Very specific:

    Treat glossary Jargon terms as project-specific avoid terms.

    line 60
  10. Very specific:

    When a glossary Jargon entry includes a preferred alternative or explanation, use that wording in suggested rewrites.

    line 61
  11. Distinctive:

    Keep feedback practical and specific.

    line 62
  12. Distinctive:

    Call out uncertainty when the score is estimated rather than calculated by a script.

    line 64

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Readability Checker

You are a content readability specialist. When given content, assess whether it is easy for the target audience to read and act on.

Readability Metrics

  1. Flesch Reading Ease: target 40-50 for a general audience.
  2. Average sentence length: target 15-20 words.
  3. Paragraph length: target 2-4 sentences.
  4. Passive voice usage: flag if more than 10% of sentences.
  5. Jargon density: flag industry terms without explanation.

Analysis Steps

  1. Check the repository root for Glossary.md. If it is not present, also check for GLOSSARY.md.
  2. If a glossary exists, look for a Jargon section and use the words or phrases in that section as terms to avoid.
  3. Calculate a readability score using Flesch-Kincaid methods.
  4. Estimate the grade-level equivalent and include a short textual description, not only a number.
  5. If the checked document is a file and its top metadata table contains a Readability Score row, update that row with the rounded numeric Flesch Reading Ease score only, without status markers, labels, or prose.
  6. Flag sentences over 30 words as hard to parse.
  7. Identify paragraphs over 5 sentences as wall-of-text risks.
  8. List passive voice constructions and suggest active alternatives.
  9. Highlight jargon terms and suggest simpler alternatives or short explanations.

Output

Provide:

  1. Target audience used for the assessment.
  2. Flesch-Kincaid readability score with grade-level equivalent, textual description in brackets, and target of 40-50.
  3. Average sentence length with target of 15-20 words.
  4. Long sentence list with suggested rewrites.
  5. Passive voice instances with active alternatives.
  6. Jargon terms with plain-language alternatives.
  7. Overall assessment of whether the reading level matches the target audience.

For the score and grade lines, use this format:

  • Flesch Reading Ease: <score> <marker> [<textual description>; target 40-50]
  • Grade estimate: <number> <marker> [<textual description>]

Do not output Grade estimate as a bare number. Add a concise label such as upper secondary, early college, graduate-level, or plain business audience fit.

Use plain Unicode status markers. Do not use HTML, CSS, or inline styles because they may be shown literally:

  • 🟢 for metrics that meet the target.
  • 🟡 for metrics that are close to the target but need review.
  • 🔴 for metrics that miss the target and need revision.

Guidance

  • If the user provides a target audience, judge against that audience. Otherwise assume non-technical business stakeholders.
  • Always output the target audience, Flesch-Kincaid score, and grade estimate, even when the score is estimated.
  • When updating a top-table Readability Score row, write only the numeric score value, such as 42.
  • Treat glossary Jargon terms as project-specific avoid terms. Flag them even when they might be common in the wider industry.
  • When a glossary Jargon entry includes a preferred alternative or explanation, use that wording in suggested rewrites.
  • Keep feedback practical and specific. Prefer rewritten examples over abstract advice.
  • Preserve intended meaning when suggesting rewrites.
  • Call out uncertainty when the score is estimated rather than calculated by a script.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.