lint-build-test

How to check code by linting, building, and testing.

1.60x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

93%

1.60x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

87%

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

The content is concise, highly actionable, and well-organized for a simple skill, with copy-ready commands and a clear decision tree. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit validation/feedback loop around the lint/build/test operations.

Suggestions

Add an explicit feedback loop: if lint/build/test fails, read the error, fix, and re-run until it passes before reporting success.

Specify what 'Report any errors' means concretely, e.g. surface the failing command, the error excerpt, and the file involved.

Clarify the no-files-changed and meta-only branches with a short verification step so each path has a defined completion checkpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and imperative with no padded explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section delivers directly useful instructions.	3 / 3
Actionability	It provides concrete, executable commands (git status, yarn workspace ... lint:fix, build, test:dev:quiet) with appropriate placeholders, ready to run.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The three-step sequence is clear with categorized branches, but batch/destructive operations (lint:fix, build, test) only 'report errors' with no validate-fix-retry feedback loop, which caps workflow clarity at 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and organized into well-labeled sections with no need for external references, satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a top score.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

60%

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 conveys a clear set of concrete actions and a domain, but omits explicit trigger guidance and natural term variations, capping both completeness and trigger quality at 2. It is distinct enough to avoid most conflicts but not strongly differentiated.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to check, lint, build, or test code before committing.'

Broaden trigger terms with natural variations users say, such as 'run tests', 'compile', or 'verify the build'.

Rephrase as third-person voice ('Checks code by linting, building, and testing') to sharpen specificity and distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions ("linting, building, and testing") tied to a named domain ("code"), matching the multi-action anchor rather than the single-action score 2.	3 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill does ("check code by linting, building, and testing") but lacks any explicit "Use when..." trigger, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Core natural terms (check, lint, build, test) are present, but common user variations like "run tests", "compile", or "verify" are missing, so coverage is incomplete.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The lint/build/test trio is a recognizable niche, but the generic "check code" framing could still overlap with other code-quality skills.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: MetaMask/ocap-kernel
Commit: 03b6a62

Reviewed: 13 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.