CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

diagnose

Interactive troubleshooting assistant for Claude Code issues

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./examples/skills/diagnose/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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.

The body is a well-structured, actionable diagnostic workflow: sequenced steps, executable commands with failure fallbacks, concrete patterns and worked examples, and smart runtime fetching of the large external reference. Its weaknesses are minor — placeholder output templates, one redundant example, and no post-prescription verification checkpoint.

Suggestions

Add a post-prescription verification step (e.g., re-run the audit scan or ask the user to confirm the symptom is gone) to close the workflow feedback loop.

Trim redundancy: Example 1 duplicates the 'Repeated permission prompts' pattern — merge the pattern's likely causes into the example and keep one.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely efficient — command blocks with brief justifying comments, no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — but has minor trimmable padding: the role line 'You are an expert diagnostic assistant for Claude Code problems...' and Example 1 restating the 'Repeated permission prompts' pattern already covered in Common patterns. This matches 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the every-token-earns-its-place level of 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides copy-paste executable commands (the pinned-ref curl fetch with awk section extraction, jq inspection commands, fallback config checks) plus two worked symptom-to-solution examples, but the Step 6 prescription format relies on placeholders ('[Step 1 - most critical action]', 'Section X.Y of the guide: [Brief description]') and the knowledge fetch depends on the external guide's heading structure — 'Mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than fully executable.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly numbered steps with explicit error-recovery loops for the fragile external operations ('If the output is empty, say so and continue from your own knowledge', 'If the script fails, report its error... then fall back to manual checks') and ambiguity checks in Step 5; it falls short of 5 because no checkpoint verifies that a prescribed fix actually resolved the user's issue.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure in a single well-sectioned file, with the heavyweight 26,000-line reference fetched on demand at runtime (only Section 10.4) instead of inlined and no nested references — the skill has no bundle files and no buried pointers. Minor gaps: the ~80 lines of patterns and examples are entirely inline with no local reference files for optional detail, keeping it below the cleanly-split level of 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 names a clear, distinct niche but is thin: one generic action word, no explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, and no concrete capability statements or natural symptom keywords. It reads as a role label rather than a capability+trigger description, leaving it below the rubric's good examples on specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add concrete capability actions to the description, e.g., 'Diagnoses permission, MCP, hooks, and settings.json issues in Claude Code and prescribes step-by-step fixes.'

Append an explicit trigger clause with concrete phrases, e.g., 'Use when Claude Code misbehaves — repeated permission prompts, MCP server failures, settings being ignored, or hooks not triggering.'

Include natural user phrasings and synonyms (errors, not working, broken, debug, can't install) to broaden trigger term coverage and sharpen distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 'Interactive troubleshooting assistant for Claude Code issues' names the domain ('Claude Code issues') but its only action is the generic 'troubleshooting', matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; a 3 would require 1-2 concrete actions (e.g., diagnosing permission, MCP, or hooks failures), which are absent.

2 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated ('Interactive troubleshooting assistant for Claude Code issues') but the description field contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline; it scores above 2 because the what is explicit rather than vague, and cannot reach 4 without an explicit when.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant keywords a user might say ('Claude Code', 'issues', 'troubleshooting') but misses common variations and synonyms such as 'errors', 'not working', 'broken', or specific symptoms like permissions, MCP servers, and hooks — fitting 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of a 5.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is fairly distinct — Claude Code troubleshooting specifically — with only minor overlap risk against adjacent skills like generic debugging or configuration-editing skills, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'; it falls short of 5 because the description provides no distinct trigger phrases (e.g., repeated permission prompts, MCP server failures) to fully separate it from those neighbors.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

20

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-ultimate-guide

Path

examples/skills/diagnose/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.