implement

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

Quality

60%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./crates/tui/assets/skills/implement/SKILL.md

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 admirably lean, well-structured instruction skill with explicit verification and failure-handling guidance. Its main weakness is actionability: the steps are clear directions but give little concrete guidance on what 'narrowest useful verification' actually entails.

Suggestions

Make step 3 more actionable by listing example verification forms (e.g. run the affected test suite, type-check, build) so 'narrowest useful verification' is concrete.

Add a brief acceptance-criteria check example to step 1 so the gate is unambiguous.

Optionally spell out the retry loop explicitly ('If verification fails: fix, then re-verify before reporting') to lift workflow_clarity to 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every line (Non-goals, four-step Workflow, Failure mode) earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.	5 / 5
Actionability	Steps are concrete process directions ('Make the smallest coherent change set', 'Run the narrowest useful verification') but stop short of specifying how to verify or what counts as done, fitting the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor rather than the executable-code anchor at 4.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 1-4 sequence with an explicit validation step (3) and an error-recovery feedback loop in the Failure mode section; it is not 5 because the verify-fix-retry loop is implied rather than spelled out as a re-validation cycle.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into well-signaled sections (When to use, Non-goals, Workflow, Failure mode), which per the simple-skills guidance merits a 5 on progressive disclosure.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

42%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 what the skill does concisely in third person but omits any 'Use when...' trigger guidance and lacks natural user-facing trigger terms. It is clear but not distinctive enough to reliably surface at the right moment.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when implementing an approved plan or scoped change request.'

Include natural trigger terms users would actually say (e.g. 'implement', 'apply this change', 'make the edit').

Tighten distinctiveness by naming the scope boundary, e.g. 'for small, well-defined edits — not greenfield design or refactors.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names two concrete actions ('scoped edits' and 'proportionate verification') but offers no comprehensive list of capabilities, matching the '1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the broader coverage of 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	There is a clear 'what' (carry a request/plan through scoped edits and verification) but no 'when'/'Use when...' clause, which per guidelines caps completeness at 3; it is not a 4 because the trigger context is entirely absent.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Only generic terms ('request', 'plan', 'edits', 'verification') appear; no natural phrases a user would say when they need this skill, fitting the 'one or two generic keywords' anchor below the midpoint.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The phrasing is somewhat specific to implementation work but 'scoped edits and verification' overlaps broadly with general coding skills, so it sits at 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' rather than the more distinct anchor at 4.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: Hmbown/Codewhale
Path: crates/tui/assets/skills/implement/SKILL.md
Commit: 21282f1

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.