BC scheduler-and-booking-design
Designing meeting schedulers and booking experiences that qualify leads, set up calls well, and convert at higher rates than a generic Calendly link. Availability logic, qualification gating, prep automation, follow-up sequencing. Honest about any-time-friction (no qualification, just a booking link), interrogation-gate (so much qualification it scares users off), and qualified-fast-path (just enough qualification to set up the call well) patterns. Triggers on scheduler design, meeting booking, demo scheduling, sales call scheduling, calendar tool, booking page, qualification flow. Also triggers when sales team complains about cold demos, when booking conversion is poor, or when scheduler is being scoped for the first time.
Designing meeting schedulers and booking experiences that qualify leads, set up calls well, and convert at higher rates than a generic Calendly link.
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 10. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "catalog_summary" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "display_order"
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4159 tokens
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 63 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- low 13 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 733: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 14 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 63 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (9 of 9)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 82.