CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

engram-tui-quality

Bubbletea/Lipgloss quality rules for Engram TUI. Trigger: Changes in model, update, view, navigation, or rendering.

Quality

78%

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 ./skills/tui-quality/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 an exemplar of token efficiency — a compact, well-sectioned rule set with no filler and an explicit test gate. Its only real gap is actionability: rules state what must hold but never show a concrete test example or pattern for satisfying them.

Suggestions

Add one minimal executable example of each test category (e.g. a short Go table-driven `update` test asserting a key transition) so the test rules are copy-paste actionable.

Make UX rules like "Long lists require clear truncation/scroll cues" concrete by naming the expected pattern (e.g. use Bubbletea's viewport/paginator and an ellipsis or item-count indicator).

State where tests live (package, naming convention) so "Add `update` tests" maps to a specific file location.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every line is a lean directive ("Keyboard behavior must be consistent across screens", "Add `update` tests for new key transitions") with zero padding and no explanation of Bubbletea/Lipgloss or Elm-architecture concepts Claude already knows — every token earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

The test rules map concrete change types to concrete test categories (update tests for key transitions, view tests for rendering branches, model tests for async commands), but no example, naming pattern, or command shows how to apply them, and UX rules like "Long lists require clear truncation/scroll cues" state the requirement without the how — some concrete guidance with key details missing.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

As a simple rule-set skill it is clearly organized with a change-to-test mapping and an explicit validation gate ("No TUI behavior change ships without deterministic tests"), fitting anchor 4; it falls short of 5 because there is no sequence or checklist for applying the rules during a change.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files, and is cleanly split into well-signaled sections (When to Use, UX Rules, Test Rules), so the simple-skill organization anchor applies fully.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 is short, explicit, and highly distinct thanks to naming the specific project and framework, and it includes an explicit Trigger clause. Its main weakness is that "quality rules" is a vague capability statement and the trigger terms cover framework jargon but miss natural user phrasings like screens, key bindings, or TUI.

Suggestions

Replace the vague capability phrase "quality rules" with concrete actions, e.g. "Enforces UX consistency and test coverage rules (update/view/model tests) for Engram TUI changes".

Add natural trigger phrasings users would actually say, such as "Use when adding screens, changing key bindings, or updating list rendering or navigation in the Engram TUI".

Mirror the body's When-to-Use triggers (screens, menu options, key bindings, detail views) in the description so the two do not diverge.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Bubbletea/Lipgloss quality rules for Engram TUI" names the domain and lists concrete trigger surfaces ("model, update, view, navigation, or rendering"), but "quality rules" enumerates no concrete capabilities or actions, matching the anchor for domain plus limited actions rather than the several-specific-actions anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both what ("quality rules for Engram TUI") and when ("Trigger: Changes in model, update, view, navigation, or rendering") are explicitly present, but the what is thin and the trigger phrases are not fully concrete, matching anchor 4 rather than 5; it is clearly above anchor 3 since the when clause is explicit.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Changes in model, update, view, navigation, or rendering" are terms a Bubbletea developer would naturally say, but natural user phrasings like "add a screen", "key bindings", "TUI", or file extensions/synonyms are missing, fitting the anchor for relevant keywords missing common variations.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Engram TUI" pins a specific named project and the Bubbletea/Lipgloss stack gives distinct triggers, so no generic skill would collide with it — a clear niche with minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

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

Gentleman-Programming/engram

Path

skills/tui-quality/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.