CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

lint-build-test

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

81

1.60x
Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

93%

1.60x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/lint-build-test/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

87%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 content is lean, actionable, and well-organized, providing copy-paste-ready commands across the per-package and monorepo cases. Its main weakness is the absence of explicit validation checkpoints and a fix-and-retry feedback loop for the batch/destructive lint:fix step.

Suggestions

Insert an explicit validation/gating checkpoint after `yarn lint:fix` (e.g. re-run lint without --fix or check the exit status) before proceeding to build, so failures halt the workflow.

Add a fix-and-retry feedback loop ("If lint reports remaining errors, review them, fix manually, and re-run until clean") to support the destructive auto-fix step.

Make the terminal step a concrete verification (e.g. confirm test exit code is 0 and report pass/fail counts) rather than a generic "Report any errors encountered".

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and well-sectioned with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (file categorization, decision rules, commands) earns its place, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands for both the per-package and whole-monorepo cases, covering the common scenarios concretely, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The steps are clearly sequenced, but `yarn lint:fix` auto-modifies files and the workflow runs lint:fix, build, and test with only a trailing "Report any errors" and no validate-then-proceed checkpoint or fix-and-retry feedback loop, so the destructive/batch-operation cap of 3 applies.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a short (~40 line), single-purpose skill with no need for external bundle files; the body is organized into clearly numbered, well-signaled sections, qualifying for the simple-skill top anchor.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

57%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 concise and uses natural trigger terms, but it lacks an explicit "Use when..." clause, which caps its completeness and limits its overall strength. It is functional but could be made more triggering and distinctive.

Suggestions

Add a "Use when..." clause naming concrete trigger phrases (e.g., "Use when the user asks to lint, build, or test code, or to run checks on a changed package").

Specify scope to improve distinctiveness, e.g. "for a Yarn monorepo" to reduce overlap with generic code-checking skills.

Expand the action list slightly (e.g. mention running checks per-package vs. repo-wide) to lift specificity from 3 toward 4.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase "check code by linting, building, and testing" names the domain and three concrete actions, but the verbs are generic and tersely stated without scope or nuance, matching the anchor that lists actions without being comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear "what" (check code by linting, building, testing) but provides no "Use when..." clause, and the rubric guidelines cap completeness at 3 when explicit trigger guidance is missing.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"check", "lint", "build", "test", and "code" are natural terms users actually say, giving good keyword coverage with only minor synonyms missing, fitting just above the midpoint anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The lint/build/test combination is a recognizable niche but the phrasing is still somewhat generic and could overlap with general development skills, matching the middle anchor.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

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
MetaMask/ocap-kernel
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.