CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

team-release

Orchestrate the release team — release-manager, qa-lead, devops-engineer, producer — to execute a release from candidate to deployment.

60

Quality

75%

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 ./.claude/skills/team-release/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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.

An exceptionally actionable, clearly sequenced orchestrator: every phase has concrete prompts, paths, verdicts, and validation, with genuine feedback loops for failure and override paths. Its main weakness is token efficiency — justification prose is repeated across sections and could be consolidated — and the single-file body is on the heavy side for progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

State the bounded write exception once (e.g. under File Write Protocol) and have the other mentions link to it rather than re-argue it in the table blockquote and How to Delegate section.

Trim the meta-rationale paragraphs (active-set collapse philosophy, 'indistinguishable from one that was never enforced') to their operative one-line rules.

Move the multi-paragraph policy prose (collaboration-protocol exception, error-recovery details) into a reference file under references/ and keep one-line pointers in SKILL.md to reduce body length.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operative — no space is spent explaining concepts Claude already knows — but it includes unnecessary meta-rationale that could be tightened: the bounded-exception justification is stated under "How to Delegate", restated in the table's blockquote, and again in "File Write Protocol", and the active-set collapse rationale plus the "indistinguishable... from one that was never enforced" philosophy run for multiple paragraphs. Anchor 3 (mostly efficient, some unnecessary explanation) fits better than 4 given the volume of repeated justification prose.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: exact AskUserQuestion prompts with [A]/[B]/[C] options, a per-agent output-path table with fixed destinations, verbatim return-contract text, blockquote templates for the stage check and active-set announcement, exact config keys to resolve, and an embedded executable bash command. Common and exceptional cases (NO-GO, override, skipped agents, stage-check block) all have concrete, copy-paste-ready handling.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Seven phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: the stage check before anything is spawned, artifact-on-disk verification before a phase counts as done, the go/no-go gate, unconditional production-deploy approval, and an error-recovery feedback loop (surface BLOCKED, fix blocker, re-run affected phase) with a partial-report requirement. This matches the anchor's explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklist integration.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with clear sectioning (phases, delegation rules, protocols, output table), and external documents (.claude/docs/automation-modes.md, error-recovery-protocol.md, config-resolution.md) are one level deep and clearly signaled. No bundle files exist in the skill; the gap keeping it below 5 is that the ~300-line single-file body inlines long policy prose (the collaboration-protocol exception, collapse rationale) that could live in a reference file.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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.

The description states a clear, third-person 'what' with specific agent roles, but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps its completeness. Trigger terms are decent but miss natural synonyms, and coverage of the release process stops at two high-level actions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. ". Use when the user asks to ship, execute, or roll out a release, or mentions releasing, deploying, or cutting a version."

Enumerate more of the concrete actions the pipeline performs (QA gate, go/no-go decision, tagging, staging/production deployment, patch notes) to lift specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

Include natural synonyms users would say — "ship a release", "launch", "roll out", "cut a release" — to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and 1-2 concrete actions ("Orchestrate the release team", "execute a release from candidate to deployment") plus named agent roles, but coverage gaps are more than minor — QA gate, go/no-go, patch notes, and post-release monitoring are all unmentioned. It lists fewer actions than anchor 4's 'several specific actions with minor gaps'.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (orchestrate the named team to execute a release from candidate to deployment) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which the rubric caps at 3. The 'when' is only weakly implied by the phrase 'execute a release'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage: "release", "release team", "deployment", "candidate" and the agent names are terms a user would naturally say. A few natural synonyms ("ship", "launch", "version bump") are missing, matching anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — release orchestration with named roles and a candidate-to-deployment scope — with distinct triggers, but "release" overlaps with closely related skills in the same ecosystem (e.g. /release-checklist), matching anchor 4's minor overlap risk rather than 5's minimal conflict.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

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.

Validation — 14 / 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

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios
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.