CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

cursor-ask

Read-only delegate to cursor-agent (Composer) for questions, investigation, design discussion, and adversarial sanity checks. No worktree, no cherry-pick, no Lead diff review — cursor-agent is locked to ask mode and cannot write. Use when user says: ask cursor, cursor sanity check, get a second opinion, adversarial review, design discussion, investigate with cursor, cursor:ask. Do NOT load for: implementation, refactor, file edits, commit/push work, anything requiring write access (use cursor:do or breezing --cursor instead).

72

Quality

88%

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

The canonical home for this skill is cursor-ask in Chachamaru127/claude-code-harness

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

Highly actionable with a clear, validated execution flow, but it carries some redundancy (repeated banner, overlapping Step 0/1, inline version-locked model name) and is a single-file monolith where detailed UX/trust-boundary material could live in separate reference files.

Suggestions

Consolidate the recurring banner and the hardcoded composer-2.5-fast model name to a single location; inline version-locked strings are time-sensitive and penalize conciseness — resolve the model via scripts/model-routing.sh at runtime rather than stating it inline.

Merge Step 0 and Step 1, which both cover the startup banner — Step 1 largely restates that Step 0 already emitted it, so collapsing them removes redundancy.

Move the detailed Narration Rules (UX Contract) violation/normal examples and the Trust Boundary prerequisite table into separate reference files (e.g. references/narration.md, references/trust-boundary.md), keeping SKILL.md a lean overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep links.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient, but the startup banner and the version-locked model name composer-2.5-fast recur across Quick Reference, Step 1, and the normal-example, and Step 0/Step 1 overlap on the same banner concept — tightening opportunities remain.

2 / 3

Actionability

Step 2 provides a fully executable, complete bash script with the valid_root resolution logic, explicit error messages and exit codes, plus concrete invocation examples and specific config paths — copy-paste ready.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced Step 0–3 flow with explicit validation checkpoints (empty-question guard, valid_root probes, exit codes 1/2) and error-recovery fallbacks; the read-only, non-destructive nature means the destructive-cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned and the external rule-file reference is clearly signaled, but it is a ~190-line monolith with no bundle files and dense inline sections (narration rules, trust-boundary table) that could be split into one-level-deep references.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

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.

A strong, specific description that concretely states capabilities, gives natural trigger phrases, answers both what and when, and actively disambiguates from sibling skills. No first/second-person voice issues.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "questions, investigation, design discussion, and adversarial sanity checks" — matching the anchor for several specific concrete actions rather than vague domain naming.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what (read-only cursor-agent delegate, locked to ask mode) and when (explicit "Use when user says..." triggers), plus a "Do NOT load for" exclusion, in third-person voice.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit natural triggers users would say ("ask cursor, cursor sanity check, get a second opinion, adversarial review, design discussion, investigate with cursor, cursor:ask") give good coverage of common phrasings.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear read-only-delegation niche with distinct triggers, further disambiguated from cursor:do and breezing --cursor via the explicit exclusion clause, making wrong-skill 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

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Chachamaru127/claude-code-harness
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.