CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

1k-retrospective

Analyze accumulated bug fix cases and propose updates to the self-testing checklist. Use periodically (weekly/monthly) to evolve quality checks based on real issues.

56

Quality

65%

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 ./.skillshare/skills/1k-retrospective/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 a concise, actionable retrospective workflow with concrete templates, thresholds, and a clearly signaled external reference. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit validation/verification step before applying batch modifications to the rule file.

Suggestions

Add a verification checkpoint in Step 5, e.g., after edits re-read self-testing.mdc to confirm line count <= 150 and the 9-section structure is intact before appending the timestamp.

Include a short feedback loop: if the modified file exceeds 150 lines or breaks structure, consolidate/move details to references/patterns.md and re-verify.

Explicitly state what counts as a "pattern" and how to label NEW vs WEAK in the report so aggregation is unambiguous.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, using terse rules and a compact report template with no padding or explanation of known concepts; only minor tightening is possible.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, executable guidance: specific thresholds (2+ for gaps, 3+ for weak spots), a copy-paste report template, and explicit modification rules (max 150 lines, one-liners only), with only minor gaps versus fully covered cases.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six steps are clearly sequenced with a stop-condition checkpoint ("If fewer than 3 new cases ... stop") and a user-confirmation gate, but this batch/destructive file-modification workflow lacks an explicit validate-and-verify step (e.g., confirming the rule file stays under 150 lines and keeps the 9-section structure), capping it at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with a well-signaled one-level-deep reference ("Read .claude/skills/1k-retrospective/references/case-studies.md", a real bundle file) and organized sections; the bulk of the lightweight process is appropriately inline, leaving only minor organization gaps.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 clearly conveys a distinctive purpose and an explicit usage cadence, with concrete actions named. It is held back from the top band by missing natural situational trigger phrases and only two named actions.

Suggestions

Add a "Use when..." clause with concrete situational triggers (e.g., "Use when reviewing recurring bug patterns or planning checklist updates").

List additional concrete actions (e.g., "identify gaps, strengthen weak checks, archive zero-hit rules") to broaden specificity.

Include natural user-facing synonyms such as "retrospective", "post-mortem", or "checklist review" to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("bug fix cases", "self-testing checklist") and two concrete actions ("Analyze accumulated bug fix cases" and "propose updates"), matching the 1-2 concrete actions anchor without being comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

It states both the what (analyze cases and propose checklist updates) and the when ("Use periodically (weekly/monthly)"), but the when is a schedule rather than concrete situational trigger phrases, leaving it one step below a 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant terms like "bug fix cases", "self-testing checklist", and "quality checks" but lacks the situational phrases a user would naturally say and common synonyms, so it sits at the some-keywords-but-incomplete anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is specific (retrospective analysis of bug-fix cases to evolve a self-testing checklist) with minimal overlap risk against other skills, though it is not maximally differentiated by explicit trigger phrases.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
OneKeyHQ/app-monorepo
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.