CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

implement

Carry an authorized, defined request or approved plan through scoped edits and proportionate verification. Skill loading is not write authorization by itself.

49

Quality

53%

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 ./crates/tui/assets/skills/implement/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

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 concise, well-organized instruction-only skill that assumes Claude's competence and avoids padding. Its main weakness is actionability and workflow validation, where guidance stays abstract without concrete examples or an explicit verify-fix-retry loop.

Suggestions

Add one or two concrete examples of what 'smallest coherent change set' and 'narrowest useful verification' look like in practice (e.g. 'run the affected test file, not the whole suite').

Make the verification checkpoint explicit as a validate-fix-retry loop in the Workflow rather than only handling failure in the separate Failure mode section.

Optionally tie each workflow step to a concrete artifact, such as naming what to report in step 4 ('changed files, test results, remaining scope').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean with no padding and does not explain concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place, matching the score-3 anchor for token efficiency.

3 / 3

Actionability

Steps like 'Make the smallest coherent change set' and 'Run the narrowest useful verification' give directional guidance but stay abstract with no concrete examples or specifics, fitting the score-2 anchor of incomplete guidance.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow is clearly sequenced and mentions verification plus a failure-mode stop, but the validation checkpoint is implicit ('narrowest useful verification') rather than an explicit validate-and-retry loop, matching the score-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and it is well organized into clear sections (When to use, Non-goals, Workflow, Failure mode), so progressive disclosure scores 3 per the simple-skills note.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

35%

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 concise and uses appropriate third-person voice, but it lacks natural user-facing trigger terms and an explicit 'Use when...' clause, leaving the 'when' only implied and capping completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when a request or plan is authorized and ready to be implemented through code edits.'

Replace internal jargon ('proportionate verification', 'scoped edits') with terms users actually say, such as 'implement', 'make the change', 'build it', or 'verify the change'.

Sharpen distinctiveness by naming the concrete edit/verification actions that separate this from a general coding skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names a domain ('authorized, defined request or approved plan') and some actions ('scoped edits', 'proportionate verification'), but the actions are abstract rather than a comprehensive list of concrete capabilities, matching the score-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill does but the 'when' is only implied — there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause, which the guidelines say caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like 'authorized, defined request', 'approved plan', and 'proportionate verification' are technical/internal jargon rather than natural terms a user would say when they need this skill; there is no plain trigger vocabulary.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It is somewhat specific to carrying out an authorized plan via scoped edits, but the framing is general enough to overlap with other implementation/coding skills rather than occupying a clear niche.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

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.

Validation15 / 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
Hmbown/CodeWhale
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.