CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

axiom-fix-build

Use when the user mentions Xcode build failures, build errors, or environment issues.

Quality

67%

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 ./axiom-codex/skills/axiom-fix-build/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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.

A dense, command-rich playbook: nearly every workflow ships copy-paste-ready bash with explicit destructive-action gating, validation checkpoints, a decision tree, and escalation paths. Its weaknesses are length and repetition — duplicated CI/SPM blocks, a ~35-line runtime-download catalogue inlined into the main file, and an unusually dense axbuild prose section — plus the absence of any progressive-disclosure bundle.

Suggestions

Deduplicate: the CI-detection snippet and the resolvePackageDependencies retry block each appear twice; keep one canonical copy and cross-reference it from the other location.

Create a references/ bundle and move the simulator-runtime download catalogue (~35 lines), the error-pattern table, and the invocation examples into it, linking them from SKILL.md to cut the main file roughly in half.

Break the 'Capture Build and Test Diagnostics' wall of prose into a short bulleted checklist (resolve AXBUILD path, run pgrep pre-check, inspect command vs collection separately, read artifacts.report for full records) so the axbuild contract is scannable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and command-focused, but with real duplication: the CI-detection snippet appears both in Mandatory First Steps ("echo \"CI env: ${CI:-not set}...\"") and again as a full if/else in "Detecting CI/CD Context"; the resolvePackageDependencies retry block is repeated verbatim in §3 and the CI/CD fixes; and the closing Scope section restates the mission. The dense axbuild prose paragraph ("Inspect command (native outcome) and collection (evidence completeness) separately...") also needs multiple readings. Not the 4 anchor because the repetition is more than 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready bash throughout: pgrep with exit-code interpretation, jq JSON filters for simulator state, sed extraction of BUILD_DIR with a case guard scoping the rm -rf, mktemp-wrapped result-bundle capture, and a saved-log fallback. Placeholders like <ACTUAL_SCHEME_NAME> are explicitly paired with their discovery command (xcodebuild -list), and the error-pattern table maps concrete error strings to specific fixes, covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

"Your Mission" gives a numbered five-step sequence with an explicit verification step and an approval gate before destructive actions; the decision tree routes each symptom to a fix section; "When to Stop and Report" and Audit Guidelines (a 9-item checklist including "Verify fixes worked" and "If fix doesn't work - escalate") provide checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops. Destructive operations are properly validated (ownership/state inspection, pgrep before every invocation, scoped-removal guard), so the destructive-cap at 3 does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle exists — 475 lines live in a single file. Section headers and § cross-references give it real structure, but reference-like content is inlined: the ~35-line simulator-runtime download catalogue, the error-pattern table, and six invocation examples clearly belong in separate files. This matches 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline' rather than the 4 anchor's 'most content is appropriately placed'.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

40%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 trigger-focused but one-sided description: it clearly states when to use the skill, yet never says what it does (diagnose and fix Xcode build failures via environment-first checks). Trigger coverage is decent but omits many natural user phrasings that the skill body itself lists as red flags.

Suggestions

Add a 'what' clause stating the skill's concrete capabilities, e.g. 'Diagnoses and fixes Xcode build failures using environment-first checks (running build processes, Derived Data, SPM cache, simulator state)', placed before the 'Use when' clause.

Expand the trigger terms with the natural phrasings the body already lists as red flags: "BUILD FAILED with no details", "No such module", "build won't compile", "tests failing with no code changes", "simulator stuck at splash screen".

Narrow or drop the generic "environment issues" trigger to Xcode-specific environment symptoms (stale Derived Data, stuck simulators) to reduce overlap with unrelated debugging skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a concrete domain ("Xcode build failures, build errors") but describes zero capabilities — it states only when to invoke the skill, never what it does. It is not entirely abstract like "Helps with documents", but it lists no actions, fitting 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' rather than the 3 anchor which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit ("Use when the user mentions Xcode build failures...") but the 'what' — what the skill actually does — is entirely absent; the 4 anchor requires both 'what' and 'when', and this description only delivers the 'when' half. This is exactly the 4 anchor's example pattern ('Extract text from PDFs and fill forms. Use when working with PDF files.') minus the capability statement.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say ("Xcode build failures", "build errors"), but misses common variations the body itself treats as red flags — "BUILD FAILED", "No such module", "won't compile", "tests failing with no code changes", "simulator stuck" — and "environment issues" is generic. Coverage is relevant but incomplete, matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than the 4 anchor's 'good keyword coverage'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Xcode build failures" carves a clear, distinct niche with minimal conflict risk against non-Xcode skills; however the trailing "environment issues" is broad enough to overlap with general environment/debugging skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk fits the 4 anchor; it is not a 5 because of that generic trailing trigger.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

CharlesWiltgen/Axiom

Path

axiom-codex/skills/axiom-fix-build/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.