qtpass-linting

QtPass CI/CD workflow - run GitHub Actions locally with act, linters, formatters

Quality

62%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.opencode/skills/qtpass-linting/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

63%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 dense with actionable, project-specific commands and a clear pre-PR workflow, but it is a monolithic file that repeats itself and inlines reference material that would benefit from separate files. Strong on actionability, weaker on conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Split the per-linter reference (gitleaks, clang-format, shfmt, clangd, prettier, textlint) and the Doxygen settings tables into separate reference files linked from SKILL.md.

Consolidate the three separate statements that act is unreliable for super-linter into one canonical note and reference it.

Add an explicit validate->fix->retry loop to the pre-PR lint workflow (run linter, if failures fix and re-run until clean) rather than the current "skip act" escape hatch.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly operational specifics Claude would not know (version pins, env quirks), but act's unreliability is restated three times and the prettier/lint guidance is repeated across sections, so it could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-pasteable commands (docker run, act invocations, npx prettier, clang-format) and specific config tables with only minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The "Run Before PR Checklist" gives a clear numbered sequence with a prettier --check checkpoint, and the super-linter section routes around act's unreliability with an explicit Docker alternative; minor validation gaps remain (no explicit validate->fix->retry loop for the lint step).	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A single ~450-line file with no bundle files or split-out references; linter-by-linter and Doxyfile reference content that could live in separate files is inlined, though section headers provide some structure.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

61%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 the domain and a couple of concrete actions with reasonable trigger terms, but it lacks an explicit "Use when..." clause, which caps its completeness. It is concise and distinct but could be more specific about what the workflow actually does.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when running QtPass CI checks locally, debugging linter/formatter failures, or reproducing GitHub Actions runs."

Replace the bare nouns "linters, formatters" with concrete actions like "run super-linter, clang-format, and prettier checks".

Mention the key tools by name (super-linter, clang-format, prettier, doxygen) so the description surfaces more natural trigger terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ("QtPass CI/CD workflow") and 1-2 concrete actions ("run GitHub Actions locally with act", "linters, formatters"), but linters/formatters are listed as nouns rather than concrete actions and coverage is not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear "what" but no "Use when..." or equivalent explicit trigger clause; per the rubric a missing trigger guidance caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms a user would say ("GitHub Actions", "act", "CI/CD", "linters", "formatters") with good coverage; a few natural synonyms (e.g. "PR checks", "continuous integration") are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoped to "QtPass" plus "act" and CI/CD linting gives a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against generic CI skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: IJHack/QtPass
Path: .opencode/skills/qtpass-linting/SKILL.md
Commit: 9972a3c

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.