CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

coding-agent

Run Codex CLI, Claude Code, OpenCode, or Pi Coding Agent via background process for programmatic control.

53

Quality

61%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/coding-agent/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

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 with concrete, executable bash commands and clear multi-step sequences, but it is verbose with duplicated PTY emphasis and informal chatter, and batch/destructive workflows lack explicit validation checkpoints. With no bundle files, it is also a monolithic single file rather than an overview pointing to references.

Suggestions

Add explicit validation/verification checkpoints before destructive or batch steps — e.g. 'run tests/build, confirm they pass, only then `git push` and `gh pr create`' — and a fix→re-validate feedback loop.

Move per-agent reference sections (Codex flags, Pi providers, PR-review patterns, Learnings) into one-level-deep reference files (e.g. AGENTS.md, PR-REVIEW.md) and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled links.

Trim the repeated 'remember PTY!'/'with PTY!' annotations and informal chatter, and remove the 'Learnings (Jan 2026)' section whose points are already covered inline.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~285-line body is mostly efficient and tool-specific (PTY/workdir guidance is genuinely non-obvious), but it pads with repeated 'remember PTY!'/'with PTY!' annotations, informal chatter ('soul.md 😅', 'Deploy the army', 'Skippy gets pinged'), and a 'Learnings (Jan 2026)' section that restates points already covered.

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides concrete, copy-paste-ready bash commands with specific flags and parameters (e.g. `bash pty:true workdir:~/project background:true command:"codex exec --full-auto '...'""`), plus complete parameter/action tables — fully executable guidance.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step workflows (PR review, parallel issue fixing, batch PR reviews) are clearly sequenced, but batch/destructive paths that push code and create PRs lack explicit validation checkpoints (e.g. verify tests/build pass before pushing), which caps workflow clarity at 2 per the rubric.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets absent), so all ~285 lines live inline in SKILL.md; section headers organize it well, but per-agent detail, PR-review patterns, and the Learnings section are content that could be split into one-level-deep reference files.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

57%

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 concrete and distinct, naming four specific coding agents and the background-process control mechanism, but it lacks an explicit "Use when" trigger and broader task-level keywords. It answers "what" well while leaving "when" only implied.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when ...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to run Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, or Pi programmatically, or to batch coding-agent tasks like building, reviewing PRs, or fixing issues.'

Add task-level trigger terms users actually say (build, refactor, review PRs, fix issues, coding agent) so the skill surfaces for those requests.

Broaden the action list beyond the single verb 'Run' to reflect the concrete workflows the body supports (launch in background, monitor, review PRs, parallel issue fixing).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names four concrete tools ("Codex CLI, Claude Code, OpenCode, or Pi Coding Agent") and the mechanism ("via background process for programmatic control"), but the only action verb is "Run" — it does not enumerate a comprehensive set of distinct actions (build, review, fix, refactor).

2 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes the natural product names a user would say (Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, Pi), but it omits common task-level variations users actually voice ("review a PR", "build a feature", "fix an issue", "coding agent").

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The four named products plus the "background process for programmatic control" framing carve a clear niche unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

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.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
Bitterbot-AI/bitterbot-desktop
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.