CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ci-flaky-patrol

Classify a bounded batch of stale PR CI failures and choose the safest response.

57

Quality

64%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.qwen/skills/ci-flaky-patrol/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

76%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 highly actionable with a precise I/O contract and worked example, and it is concise with only minor redundancy; its main gap is the absence of an explicit verification checkpoint in a batch workflow, which caps workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification step before writing, e.g. 'Before writing, confirm each decision has copied identity fields exactly and action matches the evidence category.'

Tighten the flakyTest guidance by stating the rules once and cross-referencing instead of restating them near the schema.

Break the body into ## sections (e.g. ## Actions, ## Flaky tests, ## Output) to improve scannability and push progressive disclosure toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly assumes Claude's competence, with only minor redundancy (the flakyTest rules are restated in the closing schema notes and the 'never drop a valid rerun' reassurance could be trimmed); not a 5 because of that light duplication.

4 / 5

Actionability

Gives an exact input filename, an explicit output filename, a complete copy-paste-ready JSON shape with a worked example, exact field constraints, and a closed action enum; the guidance is fully executable for this instruction-only classification task.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (read input, classify each candidate, optionally emit flakyTest, write decisions) is clear, but this is a batch operation and the skill provides no explicit verification checkpoint for Claude's output, so the rubric's batch-operation cap holds workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

At ~40 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, structure is good (intro, action bullets, JSON schema, constraints), but it relies on flowing paragraphs rather than explicit ## section headers, leaving minor organization gaps versus the well-sectioned 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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 specific and distinct, clearly stating what the skill does, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause and natural-term synonym coverage, which cap completeness and trigger quality at mid-level.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers, e.g. 'Use when triaging stale PR CI failures, flaky builds, or repeated CI runs.'

Include common synonyms users might say ('flaky tests', 'build failures', 'CI runs') to broaden trigger coverage.

Optionally list the available response actions (rerun/comment/no_action) to raise specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('stale PR CI failures') and two concrete actions ('Classify' and 'choose the safest response'), matching the anchor that lists 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage; not a 4 because only two actions are given.

3 / 5

Completeness

Provides a clear 'what' (classify failures, choose safest response) but no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger clause; per the rubric guideline a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant terms like 'PR CI failures' and 'stale' that a developer might say, but misses common synonyms and variations such as 'flaky tests', 'build failures', or 'CI runs', fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'stale PR CI failures' with 'choose the safest response' carves a fairly specific niche with minimal conflict risk, but could overlap slightly with broader CI/triage skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
QwenLM/qwen-code
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.