CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

qtpass-fixing

Bug fixing workflow for QtPass - find, fix, test, PR

61

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.opencode/skills/qtpass-fixing/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

80%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is highly actionable and token-efficient, packed with executable QtPass fix patterns and concrete commands, but workflow clarity is capped by a destructive force-push loop lacking a re-verification checkpoint, and progressive disclosure is limited by a missing referenced script and inline-heavy catalogs.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification gate before the destructive force-push (e.g., re-run `make check` and only `git push --force` when tests pass) to close the destructive-operation validation gap.

Either provide the missing ./scripts/generate-compile-commands.sh or remove/replace the broken reference, and consider moving the long Common Fix Patterns and Bug Type Playbooks catalogs into reference files to improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and actionable with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; each section (fix patterns, Qt-version table, linting) is tight and non-redundant, matching the "lean and efficient; every token earns its place" anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

It provides numerous complete, copy-paste-ready code blocks (null-pointer checks, std::remove_if/erase Qt 5.15 alternative, std::as_const, git -S commit, gh pr create) and concrete commands (make check, clang-format -i), fitting the "fully executable code/commands" anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The main flow is a clear numbered Investigate→Reproduce→Fix→Tests→Verify→Commit&PR sequence with a `make check` verify step, but the destructive force-push loop (git commit --amend + git push --force) has no explicit re-verification checkpoint before pushing, capping it at 2 per the destructive-operations guideline.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

It is well-organized via headers and signals sibling skills (qtpass-testing, qtpass-linting), but no bundle files exist and the one referenced script (./scripts/generate-compile-commands.sh) is missing, while large inline catalogs (Common Fix Patterns, Bug Type Playbooks) could be split into reference files.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 specific and clearly scoped to QtPass with concrete find/fix/test/PR actions, but it lacks any "Use when..." trigger guidance and only carries a thin set of natural keywords without common variations.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when fixing bugs in QtPass, when a QtPass issue needs a patch, or when the user asks to fix/test a QtPass defect and open a PR."

Broaden natural keyword coverage by including common variations like "bug fix", "patch", "defect", and "issue" so users' phrasings reliably surface the skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain ("QtPass") and lists four distinct concrete actions — "find, fix, test, PR" — matching the rubric's multiple-specific-actions anchor rather than the partial "some actions" anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly answers "what" (a QtPass bug-fixing workflow with find/fix/test/PR steps) but provides no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so "when" is missing — capped at 2 per the rubric guideline.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"bug fixing" and "QtPass" are natural terms, but coverage is thin with no common variations (e.g., "bug fix", "patch", "defect", "issue"), fitting the "some relevant keywords but missing common variations" anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Explicit scoping to the specific project "QtPass" gives it a clear niche unlikely to conflict with general or other-project skills, fitting the "clear niche with distinct triggers" anchor.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
IJHack/QtPass
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.