CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

bnomei/devana-bug-hunt

Finds source-visible semantic runtime bugs without running tests or builds. Use for repository bug hunts from an agent, Codex automation, or Claude loop that should report actionable correctness, security, dataflow, state/lifecycle, API-contract, validation, cache/persistence, or error-path bugs, not style, lint, architecture, maintainability, or missing-test feedback.

74

Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

85%

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

The body is highly actionable and well-structured with strong validation checkpoints and appropriately disclosed one-level-deep references. The only weakness is redundancy: the bug-class taxonomy and anti-finding exclusions are restated across multiple sections.

Suggestions

Collapse the overlapping bug categories: define them once (e.g. in Hunt Targets) and have Trails reference that list by name rather than re-enumerating each class.

State the "no style/lint/architecture/missing-test" exclusion once in Anti-Findings and drop its re-statements in the Mission, Arrows prompt, and Tool Use sections.

Consider moving the full Arrow prompt template into references/ (e.g. arrow-prompt.md) and keeping only a short shape + pointer in SKILL.md to trim the inline block.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept padding, but the Hunt Targets list and Trails list restate the same bug categories, and the Anti-Findings list, Validation Loop step 8, and Arrows prompt all repeat the "no style/lint/architecture" exclusion, so several tokens could be trimmed.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete invocation examples, an explicit argument-parsing table, executable bash snippets (`for f in .devana/*.md; do head -n 3 ...`, `rg -n ...`), a copy-ready Arrow prompt template, a concrete filename format, and discrete P0-P3 priority definitions.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The eight-step Workflow, nine-step Validation Loop, and Report Gate checklist give a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (self-challenge, counterevidence check, "report only if reachable"), plus a feedback loop for handling existing reports.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep, real files, and clearly signaled with trigger conditions ("read references/report-template.md only when writing a report", "read references/trail-playbook.md before sending Arrows"), while the body stays a well-organized overview with sectioned navigation.

3 / 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.

The description is specific, third-person, and clearly answers both what and when with explicit trigger guidance. It carves a distinctive niche via its inclusion/exclusion of bug classes, which strongly reduces conflict risk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions and a comprehensive set of bug classes ("correctness, security, dataflow, state/lifecycle, API-contract, validation, cache/persistence, or error-path bugs"), and explicitly states the static-only constraint ("without running tests or builds").

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what ("Finds source-visible semantic runtime bugs without running tests or builds") and when ("Use for repository bug hunts from an agent, Codex automation, or Claude loop"), and even scopes exclusions, satisfying the explicit-trigger requirement.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms ("repository bug hunts", "bug hunt", "bugs") plus broad bug-type coverage; the phrase "Use for repository bug hunts from an agent, Codex automation, or Claude loop" matches how a user would phrase the request.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit exclusion list ("not style, lint, architecture, maintainability, or missing-test feedback") carves a clear niche distinct from generic code review, making accidental triggering unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents