CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

wiki-status

Report wiki ingestion/completeness state, pending source delta, structural insights, or maintenance equilibrium. Use for remaining-work/status questions, hubs and bridges, or whether maintenance skills still have pending changes. wiki-digest summarizes learned knowledge instead.

Quality

77%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.skills/wiki-status/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body delivers highly actionable, read-only operational guidance with concrete commands, exact thresholds, formulas, fallbacks, and output templates — no known-concept padding. Its weaknesses are length-driven: duplicated template content, an oversized manifest example, and a monolithic three-mode structure that belongs in separate reference files rather than a single 30KB SKILL.md with no bundle.

Suggestions

Move Insights Mode and Equilibrium Mode into separate reference files (e.g., references/insights.md, references/equilibrium.md) and keep SKILL.md as a status/delta overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links — the three-mode inline structure is the main progressive-disclosure gap.

Show the expected entry format of hot.md and log.md lines (or a one-line example each) so the synthesis/lint 'recent run' lookups in Step 4a are executable rather than inferred, and tighten the wiki-dedup audit invocation into a concrete command.

Trim token cost: cut the manifest JSON example to 2 representative entries, and render the Tier Suggestions formatting block once (either in section 8 or in the output template, not both).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~530-line body is dense with genuinely non-obvious operational detail (manifest schema, delta classification table, thresholds, formulas), so it is not padded with known-concept explanation — but it could be tightened: the ~40-line full manifest JSON example, the Tier Suggestions block rendered twice (section 8 and the output template), and long output templates all inflate tokens. This sits between 'efficient with minor trims' (4) and 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' (3), landing at 3 given the sheer volume of duplicated template content.

3 / 5

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready commands ("obsidian-wiki graph-analyse \"$OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH\" --pretty --snapshot", "${QMD_CLI:-qmd} update"), exact thresholds (≥90 days, ≥5 incoming links, cohesion < 0.15, token warn default 100000), scoring formulas (+3/+2 re-ranking bonuses), and concrete output templates make this mostly executable. Not 5 because a few steps remain under-specified: the expected formats of hot.md/log.md entries for synthesis/lint lookups are never shown, and the wiki-dedup 'audit mode (no --merge, no --auto)' invocation is described rather than given as a command.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clearly numbered (Before You Start → Manifest → Step 1 scan → Step 2 delta → Step 3 report → Step 3b footprint → Step 4 ranked next-steps) with mode triggers, skip conditions (vaults < 20 pages), and explicit fallbacks (manual wikilink parsing if obsidian-wiki absent; 'omit that row and say which player is missing rather than guessing'). The destructive/batch cap does not apply — the skill is read-only except _insights.md, and QMD failure handling ('do not roll back; report the QMD status separately') is an explicit checkpoint. Not 5 because Step 3b's 'After building the status summary, compute the token footprint' is ambiguous against the template that already embeds the footprint section, and validation of the delta table itself (e.g., what to do when hash and mtime disagree in an old entry) is only implicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Cross-references are clearly signaled and one level deep ("See `llm-wiki/SKILL.md` → `.manifest.json`", "`scripts/manifest.py migrate <vault>`", WRITING.md), and in-file section structure is good — but no bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, assets/), so three full modes (~140 lines of Insights Mode, ~80 of Equilibrium Mode) plus the complete report templates are inlined monolithically in a 30KB body. This matches 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'; not 2 because in-file navigation via headers and mode triggers is genuinely clear.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

83%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: explicit what and when with concrete trigger phrases, third-person voice, several distinct capabilities named, and an explicit boundary clause against a sibling skill. The main gaps are a single 'Report' verb for all capabilities and a few missing natural trigger variations that exist only in the body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Report wiki ingestion/completeness state, pending source delta, structural insights, or maintenance equilibrium" names the domain and four distinct capabilities, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because every action is subsumed under the single verb 'Report' — the underlying operations (scan sources, compute delta, suggest next actions) are implied rather than enumerated; not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' ("Report wiki ingestion/completeness state, pending source delta, structural insights, or maintenance equilibrium") and 'when' ("Use for remaining-work/status questions, hubs and bridges, or whether maintenance skills still have pending changes") are explicitly present with concrete trigger phrases, and a boundary clause ("wiki-digest summarizes learned knowledge instead") adds scope contrast — a clear anchor-5 match.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Use for remaining-work/status questions, hubs and bridges, or whether maintenance skills still have pending changes" covers natural phrases users would say (status, hubs and bridges, pending changes). Not 5 because common variations a user would actually say — 'wiki status', 'what's changed', 'what to do next', 'is maintenance done' — are missing from the description (several exist only in the body).

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit contrast "wiki-digest summarizes learned knowledge instead" plus niche triggers (delta, hubs and bridges, equilibrium) give a mostly-distinct profile. Not 5 because closely related sibling skills named in the body (wiki-lint, wiki-ingest) share trigger space around ingestion and wiki health, and the description disambiguates against only one of them.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (550 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

Ar9av/obsidian-wiki

Path

.skills/wiki-status/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.