CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

opencode

Delegate coding to OpenCode CLI (features, PR review).

60

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/autonomous-ai-agents/opencode/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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 strong, execution-first skill document: concrete commands with correct flags, a numbered procedure with explicit validation steps, real pitfalls (the /exit trap, pty requirements), and a smoke-test verification section. The only weaknesses are mild — a slightly long inline keybindings/flags section and a brief narrative in Binary Resolution that could be tightened or moved to a reference file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficient: nearly every line is a concrete command or a short, non-obvious operational fact ("Do NOT use /exit", "Enter may need to be pressed twice", "run does NOT need pty"). Minor over-explanation could be trimmed — the Binary Resolution narrative and parts of the TUI keybinding table (e.g. Ctrl+X session/editor shortcuts) are not strictly needed when driving via process actions — so it lands at anchor 4 rather than the fully lean anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Every example is a complete, copy-paste-ready invocation with all relevant flags (workdir, background, pty, -f, --model), and coverage spans the common cases: one-shot run, interactive background session, resume, flags table, PR review, parallel worktrees, and a verification smoke test. This matches anchor 5 fully.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Procedure section is a clearly numbered sequence that begins with an explicit validation checkpoint (verify version + auth list), includes monitoring (poll/log), input handling (submit), and clean exit, and the separate Verification section defines a smoke test with concrete success criteria ("Output includes OPENCODE_SMOKE_OK"). Error-recovery guidance ("If OpenCode appears stuck, inspect logs before killing") provides the feedback loop, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the ~200-line body is well-sectioned with clear headers (When to Use, Prerequisites, One-Shot Tasks, Interactive Sessions, Pitfalls, Verification). It is not a 5: the skill exceeds 50 lines, and reference-shaped material (the TUI keybindings table and the common-flags table) is inlined where a references/ file would keep SKILL.md leaner — a minor organization gap consistent with anchor 4.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 names a specific tool plus one concrete capability, but it is under-specified: it lacks any "when to use" trigger clause and misses natural trigger terms like "code review" or "refactoring". It communicates the what but not the when.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to use OpenCode, wants to delegate implementation/refactoring to an external coding agent, or requests an automated PR review."

Enumerate the concrete capabilities more fully (e.g. one-shot code generation, interactive background sessions, parallel worktrees, session resume) instead of the vague "features".

Include natural synonyms users would say — "code review", "refactoring", "autonomous coding agent" — to improve trigger matching.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Delegate coding to OpenCode CLI (features, PR review)" names the domain (coding via OpenCode CLI) and one concrete action ("PR review"), but "features" is generic and overall coverage is thin. It sits between anchor 2 (generic actions) and anchor 4 (several specific actions), matching anchor 3: domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

The description gives a clear "what" (delegate coding tasks to OpenCode CLI, PR review) but has no "when" — there is no "Use when..." or equivalent trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline. It is not a 2 because the "what" is concrete, not vague.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("OpenCode", "coding", "PR review"), but common natural variations users would say are missing: "code review", "refactoring", "delegate tasks", "autonomous coding agent", "AI coding assistant". This matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing variations/synonyms) rather than 4, where natural-term coverage would be broadly filled out.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming the specific tool ("OpenCode CLI") gives it a clear niche distinct from generic coding skills, with concrete triggers like "PR review". It is not a 5 because the description is so terse that it does not differentiate from sibling CLI coding-agent skills (claude-code, codex) beyond the tool name, leaving minor overlap risk.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
NousResearch/hermes-agent
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.