CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

peteski22/typescript-style

Validate TypeScript/React code against style and architectural conventions

49

Quality

62%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

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, highly actionable validation skill with clear severity classifications, executable input commands, and a precise JSON output schema. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (some sections like Scope Declaration and Language Scope add tokens without proportional value) and the monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed rules into referenced files. The anti-pattern propagation guidance and explicit pass/fail criteria are notable strengths.

Suggestions

Trim or remove the 'Scope Declaration' MUST NOT list and 'Language Scope' section — these defensive instructions consume tokens for edge cases Claude can handle implicitly.

Consider extracting the detailed HARD/SHOULD/WARN rule lists into a separate RULES.md reference file, keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with the workflow and output schema.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some unnecessary sections like 'Scope Declaration' with explicit 'MUST NOT report on' lists and 'Assumptions' that restate obvious context. The 'Language Scope' section telling Claude to ignore other languages is somewhat redundant. However, the rules themselves are tightly written.

2 / 3

Actionability

Highly actionable: provides executable git commands for input gathering, specific rule categories with concrete examples (e.g., no `any` types, no class components, useEffect dependency completeness), and an exact JSON output schema. The severity classification (HARD/SHOULD/WARN) with clear pass/fail logic is copy-paste ready.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced: gather changed files via git commands (with fallback order), read files, evaluate rules in listed order, categorize findings by severity, and produce structured JSON output. The pass/fail criteria are explicit, the batch handling note for >50 files is a good checkpoint, and the anti-pattern propagation section provides a clear decision framework for edge cases.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is well-organized with clear section headers and logical grouping (HARD/SHOULD/WARN), but it's a monolithic ~170-line file with no references to supporting files. The detailed rules for each category (TypeScript, React, Hooks, State Management) could be split into separate reference files, with SKILL.md serving as an overview. However, given no bundle files exist, the inline approach is acceptable though not ideal.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

32%

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 identifies a clear domain (TypeScript/React) and a general purpose (validation against conventions), but lacks specific concrete actions, natural trigger terms users would say, and an explicit 'Use when...' clause. It would benefit significantly from more detail on what specific validations are performed and when the skill should be selected.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'code review', 'lint', 'check style', 'coding standards', 'best practices', '.tsx files'.

List specific concrete actions such as 'checks naming conventions, enforces component structure patterns, validates import ordering, verifies prop typing patterns'.

Include common user-facing keywords and file extensions like 'lint', 'code quality', '.ts', '.tsx', 'React components' to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (TypeScript/React) and a general action (validate code against conventions), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check naming conventions, enforce component structure, verify import ordering'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Describes what the skill does (validate code against conventions) but has no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is also not very detailed, placing this at 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant keywords like 'TypeScript', 'React', 'style', 'architectural conventions', and 'validate', but misses common user variations like 'lint', 'code review', 'coding standards', 'best practices', or file extensions like '.tsx'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Specifying TypeScript/React narrows the domain somewhat, but 'style and architectural conventions' is broad enough to overlap with general linting skills, code review skills, or other TypeScript/React development skills.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Reviewed

Table of Contents