CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

create-rule

Use when found gap or repetative issue, that produced by you or implemenataion agent. Esentially use it each time when you say "You absolutly right, I should have done it differently." -> need create rule for this issue so it not appears again.

Quality

66%

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 ./antigravity/skills/create-rule/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is create-rule in NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%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 delivers excellent, actionable guidance — a clear contrastive-pattern methodology, complete examples, a sequenced 7-step workflow with validation and iteration, and a checklist. Its weaknesses are verbosity (a redundant raw paste of official docs with rendering artifacts) and a template/validation inconsistency around required frontmatter fields.

Suggestions

Delete the 'Claude Code Official Rules Guidlines' section or move it to references/claude-code-rules.md — it duplicates earlier sections and contains paste artifacts ('theme={null}', '<Note>') that render as noise.

Reconcile the 'Required Sections' template with Steps 5–6: add 'impact' and 'tags' to the frontmatter template so the executable template matches the validation checklist.

Tighten redundant prose (e.g., 'Why Contrastive Examples Work' overlaps the Overview principle; naming conventions repeat the directory-structure rationale) to bring the file closer to its own 50–200-word-per-rule token-efficiency philosophy.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~520-line body duplicates itself: the final 'Claude Code Official Rules Guidlines' section (~85 lines) is a raw paste of official docs — complete with unrendered artifacts like 'text theme={null}' and a literal '<Note>' tag — that repeats the setup, path-scoping, and user-level content already explained earlier in the skill's own words. This matches 'Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'. Not 3 because the padding is concentrated and substantial, not just occasional over-explanation; not 1 because the core guidance sections are dense and useful.

2 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is mostly copy-paste ready: a full rule file template, two complete worked examples with real TypeScript, a decision flowchart for scope, concrete overlap-detection commands ('ls -R .claude/rules/' and 'grep -r "relevant-keyword"'), and a checklist. Not 5 because of internal inconsistency — the 'Required Sections' template shows only 'title' and 'paths' frontmatter while Step 5 and Step 6 mandate 'title', 'impact', and 'tags', leaving the reader without a matching executable template.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 7-step process is clearly sequenced with an explicit validation step (Step 6 checklist) and a full feedback loop (Step 7's Decompose → Filter → Reweight cycle plus 'iterate until the rule is good'), exactly matching the anchor 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'. The rule-writing domain is not itself destructive/batch, so no cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), so everything sits in one ~520-line SKILL.md. Internal section structure is good, but the pasted official-docs section and the exhaustive directory/naming/glob reference material are content that clearly belongs in a separate reference file (or should be cut), matching 'Some structure... content that should be separate is inline'. Not 4 because a ~520-line single file with a duplicated reference chunk exceeds what belongs inline in a SKILL.md overview.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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 has a genuinely strong and explicit trigger (when the agent admits a mistake), but the 'what' is a single vague clause, the writing is riddled with spelling and grammar errors, and it uses second-person voice. It would benefit most from a rewrite that states the concrete capability (create contrastive Incorrect/Correct rule files in .claude/rules/) in corrected third-person prose.

Suggestions

Rewrite in corrected third person with a concrete 'what': e.g., 'Creates contrastive Incorrect/Correct rule files in .claude/rules/ to prevent recurring agent mistakes. Use when the same gap or mistake appears twice, or when the agent concedes "you're absolutely right, I should have done it differently".'

Fix misspellings ('repetitive', 'absolutely', 'implementation', 'essentially') so trigger keywords match what users actually type.

Add distinguishing scope language (rules vs skills vs memory) to reduce overlap with feedback/memory-keeping skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The only concrete action named is 'need create rule for this issue so it not appears again' — one generic action in a barely-named domain, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It also uses second person throughout ('produced by you', 'when you say', 'I should have done it differently'), which per the guidelines reduces the specificity score by 1 from a borderline-3 base; misspellings ('repetative', 'implemenataion') further muddy what the skill concretely does.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: 'when' is unusually explicit ('Use when found gap or repetative issue... use it each time when you say...') and 'what' is stated ('need create rule for this issue so it not appears again'). This matches anchor 4 — both 'what' and 'when', with one of them (the 'what': what a rule is, where it goes) able to be far more explicit and specific. Not 3 because the 'when' is emphatic and multi-trigger, not merely implied; not 5 because the 'what' is vague and grammatically broken.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ('gap', 'issue', 'rule', the quoted admission 'You absolutly right, I should have done it differently'), but common variations are missing ('recurring mistake', 'remember this', 'always do X', '.claude/rules') and key terms are misspelled ('repetative', 'absolutly', 'implemenataion'), which would defeat literal keyword matching. Not the level below (2) because the quoted trigger phrase is genuinely natural and distinctive; not 4 because coverage lacks synonyms and correct spellings.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger scenario — creating a rule right after admitting 'I should have done it differently' — carves a clear niche distinct from general feedback or memory skills, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. Not 5 because 'create rule' could still collide with skills for remembering feedback, writing CLAUDE.md guidance, or updating agent configuration, and the description never disambiguates rules from skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (612 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

Path

antigravity/skills/create-rule/SKILL.md

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.