CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

dx-review

Review developer experience and API ergonomics

54

Quality

60%

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 ./.opencode/skills/dx-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%

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

The body is well-structured with a clear sequence and output template, scoring well on workflow clarity and organization. Its main weaknesses are conceptual redundancy between the two step frameworks and the lack of a worked example, which hold conciseness and actionability at the 2-band.

Suggestions

Merge the 'Your Task' and 'Review Process' step lists into a single sequenced workflow to remove the duplicated framing and tighten the body.

Add one short worked example of a completed issue entry (Problem/Example/Recommendation with real TypeScript) so the output template is actionable rather than a bare skeleton.

Trim the questions-as-bullets in the criteria into imperative checks to reduce token weight while preserving coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining what DX is, but 'Your Task' (steps 1-4) and 'Review Process' (steps 1-4) overlap conceptually and could be consolidated. Matches anchor 2 ('Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'); below 3 because of the duplicated framing.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides a concrete output template, output path (.agents/scratch/dx-review-<scope>.md), and named criteria categories, but only as an empty skeleton with no worked example of a filled-in review. Matches anchor 2 ('Some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details').

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The process is clearly sequenced with checklist-like criteria and an explicit output structure, and the task is a non-destructive analysis so validation checkpoints are not required (the cap-at-2 rule applies only to destructive/batch operations). Matches anchor 3 for this context.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a self-contained prompt with no need for external bundle references, and is organized into clearly headed, navigable sections (Task, Criteria, Process, Output Format, Guidelines). Per the rubric's simple-skill allowance, well-organized sections without external references can score 3.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 names a clear niche, but it states only the action without explicit invocation triggers and lacks natural keyword variations. It sits at the anchor-2 band across all dimensions.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when reviewing a library's API ergonomics, developer experience (DX), or how intuitive the public interface is to consume.'

List specific concrete actions (e.g. 'Audit discoverability, consistency, error experience, and types; surface friction and propose API improvements') to raise specificity.

Include natural keyword variations like 'DX', 'API usability', and 'pit of success' so the description matches how users phrase the request.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('developer experience', 'API ergonomics') and one concrete action ('Review'), but it is not a comprehensive list of specific actions. Closest to anchor 2 ('Names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive'); below 3 which requires multiple concrete actions, above 1 which is purely vague.

2 / 3

Completeness

States what it does ('Review developer experience and API ergonomics') but has no 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger for when to invoke it. Per the rubric guideline, a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant keywords ('developer experience', 'API ergonomics') a user might say, but they lean technical and miss common natural variations (e.g. 'DX', 'API usability'). Matches anchor 2 ('Some relevant keywords but missing common variations'); not 3 because coverage of natural phrasings is thin.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The DX-review niche is somewhat specific, but without trigger terms it could overlap with general code-review or refactoring skills. Matches anchor 2 ('Somewhat specific but could still overlap'); not 3 which requires distinct triggers.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
LibPDF-js/core
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.