lint-build-test
How to check code by linting, building, and testing.
73
60%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
93%
1.60xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/lint-build-test/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 brief, high-level summary that names three concrete actions but lacks depth, explicit trigger guidance, and natural keyword variations. It would benefit significantly from a 'Use when...' clause and more specific details about supported languages, tools, or scenarios to help Claude distinguish this skill from others.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to check, validate, lint, build, compile, or run tests on their code.'
Include natural trigger term variations such as 'lint', 'run tests', 'compile', 'type check', 'CI', 'code quality', and specific tool names if applicable.
Expand the 'what' portion with more concrete details, e.g., 'Runs linters to catch style and syntax issues, builds the project to verify compilation, and executes test suites to validate correctness.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (code checking) and lists three specific actions (linting, building, testing), but doesn't elaborate on what each entails or what tools/languages are involved. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes 'what' at a high level (check code by linting, building, testing) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also fairly thin, placing this at 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'linting', 'building', and 'testing' that users might mention, but misses common variations like 'lint', 'compile', 'run tests', 'CI', 'check errors', 'type check', or specific tool names. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of linting, building, and testing is somewhat specific to a code quality/CI workflow, but could overlap with separate linting-only, build-only, or testing-only skills if they exist. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-crafted, concise skill that provides clear, actionable commands for checking code in a yarn monorepo. Its main weakness is the lack of explicit error handling and feedback loops between the lint → build → test steps — if any step fails, there's no guidance on whether to stop, fix, and retry before proceeding. Overall it's a strong skill that efficiently communicates the workflow.
Suggestions
Add explicit error handling between steps: e.g., 'If lint:fix reports errors that cannot be auto-fixed, stop and address them before proceeding to build' and similar for build failures before test.
Consider adding a brief note on what 'Report any errors' means in practice — should Claude attempt to fix them, summarize them, or just list them?
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient. It doesn't explain what linting or building is, assumes Claude knows git commands and yarn workspaces, and every section serves a clear purpose. No unnecessary padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific, copy-paste ready commands (e.g., `yarn workspace <package-name> lint:fix`, `yarn lint:fix`). The file categorization is concrete with explicit extensions listed. The decision tree for what to run is clear and unambiguous. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (analyze → determine → run), and the numbered sub-steps within the full check are well-ordered. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops — e.g., what to do if lint:fix fails before proceeding to build, or if build fails before proceeding to test. The final line 'Report any errors' is vague rather than providing error recovery guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, the content is well-organized with clear headers and logical sections. The structure is appropriate for the complexity level. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- MetaMask/ocap-kernel
- Commit
052f4d4
- 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.