bash-defensive-patterns
Master defensive Bash programming techniques for production-grade scripts. Use when writing robust shell scripts, CI/CD pipelines, or system utilities requiring fault tolerance and safety.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:Dokhacgiakhoa/antigravity-ide --skill bash-defensive-patternsOverall
score
62%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
82%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description with good completeness and trigger term coverage. It clearly states both purpose and usage conditions. The main weakness is lack of specific concrete actions - it describes the approach ('defensive', 'fault tolerance') but not the specific techniques (error handling, input validation, signal trapping).
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions like 'set strict mode, trap errors, validate inputs, handle signals' to improve specificity
Consider adding more distinctive triggers like 'set -euo pipefail', 'error handling', or 'shellcheck' to reduce potential overlap with general shell scripting skills
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain ('Bash programming', 'shell scripts', 'CI/CD pipelines') and mentions 'defensive techniques' and 'fault tolerance', but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'set error traps', 'validate inputs', or 'handle signals'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Master defensive Bash programming techniques for production-grade scripts') and when ('Use when writing robust shell scripts, CI/CD pipelines, or system utilities requiring fault tolerance and safety') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'Bash', 'shell scripts', 'CI/CD pipelines', 'system utilities', 'robust', 'fault tolerance', 'safety'. These are terms users naturally use when seeking help with production shell scripting. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While 'defensive Bash' and 'fault tolerance' provide some distinction, this could overlap with general Bash/shell scripting skills or CI/CD skills. The 'defensive' and 'production-grade' qualifiers help but aren't strongly unique triggers. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill functions primarily as a table of contents rather than actionable guidance. While it correctly defers detailed patterns to a sub-resource, the main SKILL.md lacks any concrete code examples, specific commands, or executable snippets that would make it immediately useful. The 'when to use' sections add token overhead without value.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete code example showing strict mode setup (e.g., `set -euo pipefail`) directly in the main skill file
Replace abstract instructions like 'Validate inputs' with specific executable patterns (e.g., `[[ -z "$1" ]] && { echo 'Usage: ...' >&2; exit 1; }`)
Remove or significantly condense the 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' sections—Claude can infer appropriate usage from the skill description
Add a validation checkpoint example in the workflow, such as a dry-run flag pattern or confirmation prompt for destructive operations
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is relatively brief but includes some unnecessary sections like 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' which explain obvious context Claude can infer. The actual instructions are lean but the framing adds token overhead. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions are vague and abstract ('Enable strict mode', 'Validate inputs', 'Add logging') without any concrete code examples, specific commands, or executable patterns. Everything actionable is deferred to an external file. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a 4-step sequence provided, but steps are high-level abstractions without validation checkpoints or feedback loops. For defensive Bash programming involving potentially destructive operations, the lack of explicit validation steps is a gap. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external resources appropriately (implementation-playbook.md), but the main file provides almost no substantive content—it's essentially just a pointer. The overview should contain at least minimal executable examples before deferring to detailed docs. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
91%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.