CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

bugfix

Fix a bug from a GitHub issue, following the reproduce-first workflow. Use when the user asks to fix a bug, investigate a GitHub issue, or debug a user-reported problem. Takes a GitHub issue URL or number as input.

Quality

88%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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.

Excellent workflow skill: every step is concrete and executable, validation checkpoints and bounded feedback loops are explicit at each stage, and the body stays lean with no padding or over-explanation. The only trims are a single justificatory sentence and slightly sparse trigger synonyms in the description rather than the body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean, imperative, and assumes Claude's competence throughout — no concept explanations, no library comparisons, no filler. One minor instance of trimmable rationale: "fixing without first reproducing the bug tends to produce incomplete fixes and regressions" justifies an instruction Claude would follow anyway. Matches anchor 4 (efficient, minor over-explanation) rather than 5 because of that sentence.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: a copy-paste-ready `gh issue view` command with a complete markdown template, concrete build/verify commands (`npm run build && npm run bundle`, `node dist/cli.js`), and specific artifact paths (`.qwen/issues/issue-<number>.md`). Directive steps (fix, tests, review triage) are concrete and specific, matching anchor 5 for an orchestration-style skill.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation gates: reproduction gate ("If the status is `NOT_REPRODUCED`, report that and stop"), verification feedback loop ("If the verification status is `STILL_BROKEN`... go back to Step 3"), a hard gate ("Do not proceed until verification returns `VERIFIED_FIXED`"), and bounded iteration rules ("Do not loop more than 3 times... without asking the user"). This matches anchor 5: explicit validation steps, error-recovery feedback loops, and loop bounds.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single self-contained file with no bundle directory, and nothing in it belongs in a separate reference file — the issue template is short and used inline. Sections are clearly headed and easy to navigate, and external pointers (`structured-debugging` skill, `test-engineer` agent, AGENTS.md self-audit) are clearly signaled one-level references, matching anchor 5's structure.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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.

A strong description: it explicitly states what the skill does, when to use it with natural trigger phrases, and the expected input format, all in third person and without padding. The main gaps are limited enumeration of the workflow's specific actions (only fix/reproduce are named) and a trigger ("debug a user-reported problem") that slightly overlaps a general debugging skill.

Suggestions

Expand the 'what' clause to name 2-3 more concrete actions, e.g. "reproduce the bug, implement the fix, verify it, and add regression coverage".

Add a few natural trigger synonyms such as "resolve an issue" or "regression" to widen trigger coverage without adding bulk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Fix a bug from a GitHub issue, following the reproduce-first workflow" names the domain and 1-2 concrete actions but does not enumerate the fuller capability set (reproduce, fix, verify, regression tests, review). This matches anchor 3; it is above anchor 2 because the actions are concrete rather than generic, but below anchor 4 because coverage of specific actions is limited to fix-plus-workflow framing.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Fix a bug from a GitHub issue, following the reproduce-first workflow") and when ("Use when the user asks to fix a bug, investigate a GitHub issue, or debug a user-reported problem"), plus the input format ("Takes a GitHub issue URL or number as input"). This matches anchor 5 with concrete trigger phrases for both questions.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present: "fix a bug", "investigate a GitHub issue", "debug a user-reported problem" — all phrasings a user would naturally say. Below anchor 5 because common synonyms/variations like "resolve an issue", "regression", or "error report" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The GitHub-issue + reproduce-first framing carves a clear niche, but "debug a user-reported problem" is broad enough to overlap with a general debugging/troubleshooting skill. Matches anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk with closely related skills) rather than anchor 5, whose example triggers are all unambiguously niche.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

QwenLM/qwen-code

Path

.qwen/skills/bugfix/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.