CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

dx-review

Review developer experience and API ergonomics

45

Quality

47%

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

57%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 a well-structured, mostly concise DX-review playbook with strong criteria and a clear output template, but it lacks a verification checkpoint on its output and leans on procedural direction over executable examples. Adding a self-check step and trimming redundant closing prose would lift it further.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification/checklist step at the end of the Review Process (e.g. confirm each issue has a severity, category, runnable example, and recommendation before writing the file).

Provide one worked example of a completed issue block so the output format is unambiguous and copy-paste ready.

Remove the redundant final "Begin" section that restates the task, and fix the stray trailing ``` fence for clean parsing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is well-organized with tight bullet points and assumes Claude's competence (e.g. "Examine the TypeScript definitions"); minor padding like the closing "Begin" restatement and a stray trailing ``` fence could be trimmed, but it is generally efficient.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete in structure (numbered criteria, an output template with severity/category fields) but offers only procedural direction rather than executable commands or worked examples; the code blocks are output-format templates rather than runnable review steps.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps are clearly sequenced ("Your Task" then "Review Process" Step 1-4), but this review produces a destructive/batch-style output (writing files, prioritizing changes) with no validation or verification checkpoint confirming the review output meets criteria before finishing, capping workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-structured into clearly signaled sections (criteria, process, output format, guidelines) with no nested references and no bundle files to mismanage; minor gaps (the output template is inlined rather than referenced) keep it just below 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

37%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 is a clear but bare sentence naming the DX/API ergonomics domain with no trigger guidance and few concrete actions. It would be substantially stronger with a "Use when..." clause and more specific verbs.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when reviewing the developer experience of a library API or evaluating API ergonomics."

Replace the single generic verb "Review" with concrete actions such as "Identify friction, evaluate naming consistency, and document actionable API improvements."

Include natural trigger synonyms users would actually say, like "DX review," "API usability," or "ergonomics review."

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description "Review developer experience and API ergonomics" names the domain (DX/API ergonomics) and implies a review action, but lists no concrete actions like "identify friction points" or "evaluate method naming," so it lands at the 1-2 concrete actions anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

It states a clear "what" (review DX and API ergonomics) but provides no "Use when..." trigger clause, and the judging guideline caps completeness at 3 for a missing explicit trigger — with only a vague what and no when, it sits at 2.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant keywords like "developer experience," "API," and "ergonomics" but misses natural variations users would say (e.g. "DX review," "API usability," "review this API").

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Developer experience and API ergonomics" is a defined niche but fairly broad and could overlap with general code review skills, so it is somewhat specific but carries overlap risk.

3 / 5

Total

11

/

20

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.