CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

analyze-azdo-build

Analyze Azure DevOps CI failures in dd-trace-dotnet using live build data or supplied logs. Use for failing builds, PR checks, and snapshot-versus-span-count diagnosis.

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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 highly actionable, project-specific troubleshooting skill with copy-paste commands, explicit user-confirmation checkpoints for the destructive retry path, and a real error-recovery section. Its main weaknesses are redundancy between the Task and Implementation Steps sections and a progressive-disclosure structure whose two most-referenced files are missing from the bundle.

Suggestions

Delete the "## Task" section (or collapse it into a two-line phase overview) — its Phase 1/Phase 2 bullet lists are fully restated under "## Implementation Steps".

Add failure-patterns.md and scripts-reference.md to the bundle or fix the links (they are cited ~9 times but only references/cli-reference.md ships); consider also moving the Timeline Record Structure and snapshot-mismatch fine print into a reference file.

Add a verification step after the UpdateSnapshotsFromBuild command (e.g., re-run the affected test or show the resulting diff) to close the loop on the snapshot-update workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly dense, non-obvious project knowledge (API quirks, field names, exact commands) that earns its tokens, but the "## Task" section re-lists both phases that "## Implementation Steps" then details in full, "## Additional Resources" repeats links already given inline, and a few over-hedged multi-clause sentences (e.g., "Missing spans can result from instrumentation defects, startup/transport failures, or timing; the count alone does not prove a deterministic regression or rule out flakiness") could be tightened. This fits "mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be trimmed" better than the minor-trim level 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready for every invocation pattern ("pwsh -NoProfile -Command \".\\tracer\\tools\\Get-AzureDevOpsBuildAnalysis.ps1 -BuildId $BUILD_ID -Verbose\"", "./tracer/build.ps1 UpdateSnapshotsFromBuild --BuildId <BUILD_ID>", "gh pr checks <PR> --repo DataDog/dd-trace-dotnet") and include concrete failure-specific workarounds ("The az devops invoke --resource logs API returns HTTP 500, so avoid it"). Example 1 shows a full realistic output block, so the common cases are covered.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The two-phase sequence is clearly gated ("DO NOT perform these steps automatically", "ONLY IF USER REQUESTS") and the state-mutating retry path has explicit checkpoints ("Run with -WhatIf first to preview", "Confirm with user — Show the list of stages that would be retried and ask for confirmation") plus a re-check feedback loop ("After retrying, offer to re-run the analysis script later"). It falls short of a 5 because Phase 1 steps 1-4 are bundled into one "Step 1-4: Run Quick Analysis Script" block, the workflow is spread across four sections with Task/Implementation-Steps duplication, and there is no verification step after updating snapshots.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The load-condition signaling is good where it exists ("Load ONLY during Phase 2 categorization", "Load ONLY if the PowerShell script fails"), but scored against the actual bundle: "failure-patterns.md" and "scripts-reference.md" are referenced throughout yet are not present (only references/cli-reference.md exists), making those navigation paths dead ends. Detail-heavy sections (Timeline Record Structure, snapshot-mismatch fine print, full Example 1 output) are inlined where reference files would be appropriate, matching "some structure but could be better organized" better than level 4's "references mostly clear".

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete trigger terms and tight scoping to one repository and CI system. The only notable gap is that it omits several capabilities the skill actually delivers (retrying stages, categorizing failures, downloading logs).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Concrete actions are named — "Analyze Azure DevOps CI failures", "using live build data or supplied logs", "snapshot-versus-span-count diagnosis" — which goes beyond the 1-2 actions of level 3. It is not level 5 because coverage has gaps: the skill also retries failed stages, categorizes failures (real/flaky/infrastructure), and downloads logs, none of which appear in the description.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the "what" is "Analyze Azure DevOps CI failures in dd-trace-dotnet using live build data or supplied logs" and the "when" is the concrete trigger clause "Use for failing builds, PR checks, and snapshot-versus-span-count diagnosis". This mirrors the level-5 anchor's what-plus-explicit-trigger pattern; the voice is third person, so no penalty applies.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present: "failing builds", "PR checks", "CI failures", "Azure DevOps". Good coverage rather than comprehensive — common variations like "pipeline failure", "flaky tests", or "broken build" are missing, and "snapshot-versus-span-count diagnosis" is jargon rather than a phrase a user would naturally say, so level 4 fits better than 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is scoped to a single repository ("dd-trace-dotnet") and a single CI system ("Azure DevOps"), giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with generic CI/troubleshooting skills. It matches the level-5 anchor rather than level 4's "minor overlap risk with closely related skills".

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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.

Validation — 13 / 16 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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 6 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

DataDog/dd-trace-dotnet

Path

.claude/skills/analyze-azdo-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.