CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ask

Send a request to a CCB agent with `ask`.

52

Quality

58%

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 ./inherit_skills/qoder_skills/ask/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is ask in SeemSeam/claude_codex_bridge

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 dense, telegraphic rulebook with genuinely executable command forms, a well-sequenced decision procedure, and explicit error-recovery guidance — well above typical skill bodies. Its main weaknesses are moderate redundancy across guardrail bullets and no worked example instantiating the placeholders, plus a Guardrails section long enough that it could live partly in a reference file.

Suggestions

Consolidate the three near-duplicate --chain dependency rules into a single rule to trim tokens without losing coverage.

Add one concrete worked example (real target and message text) so the bash form is copy-paste runnable as-is.

Move the lineage/continuation edge-case rules (the CCB routing bullets) into a references file linked from a short "Edge cases: see LINEAGE.md" pointer.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is telegraphic and assumes competence throughout (e.g., "Automatic spill for text over 4 KiB is a fallback, not the primary rule", "Artifact flags are orthogonal to --chain, --silence, and --compact"), with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It falls short of 5 because the Guardrails list contains near-duplicative rules — the --chain dependency guidance appears at "Do not probe `--chain`...", "Never add `--chain` merely to make a rejected plain ask succeed", and "Plain nested `ask` from an active CCB task is rejected" — that could be consolidated.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance dominates: two copy-paste bash forms ("command ask \"$TARGET\" <<'EOF' ... "), the exact recovery command "ccb followup <active_job_id> --message \"<correction>\"", and a step-by-step Decision Card mapping each intent to a specific flag. It is not 5 because only two of the many flag combinations are shown as ready-to-run examples, and placeholders like $TARGET/$MESSAGE are not instantiated with a worked example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Decision Card gives a clearly sequenced pre-submit procedure (need delegation? -> dependency gate -> result intent -> request fidelity), and guardrails supply explicit error recovery ("If CCB says `ask --chain requires an active parent job`, retry once with plain `ask`") plus a definitive post-submit step ("After submit, stop"). It is not 5 because there is no checkpoint confirming the submission succeeded, and several guardrails (lineage routing, continuation rules) are stated as assertions rather than ordered steps for the situation they cover.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body has clean section structure (Decision Card, Guardrails, command examples) with no dangling references and no nested-reference indirection; every rule is directly actionable from the single file, and no bundle files exist to misroute. It is not 5 because the ~60-line Guardrails rule list is dense enough that a reference file (e.g., edge-case/lineage rules) would keep SKILL.md closer to an overview, leaving minor organization gaps.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

41%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 appropriately terse and names a concrete niche (CCB agent delegation via `ask`), but it is minimal to a fault: it omits any "when to use" trigger guidance and mentions none of the skill's actual capabilities (flag modes, chaining, artifact handling). Adding an explicit "Use when..." clause and naming the main flag capabilities would lift it substantially.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to delegate work to a CCB agent or when project memory says to use CCB `ask` for collaboration."

Name the key capabilities so specificity reflects what the skill actually does, e.g. "...with `ask`, selecting flags such as `--chain` for dependent child tasks, `--silence` for no-result publishing, `--compact` for distilled replies, and `--artifact-request`/`--artifact-reply` for structured content."

Include a natural synonym ("delegate", "hand off", "collaborate with agents") so users' phrasing matches the description without knowing the term "CCB".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Send a request to a CCB agent with `ask`" names the domain (CCB agent delegation) but the action is a single generic one ("send a request"), matching the anchor "Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic". It does not rise to 3 because no second concrete action or capability (e.g., flags like --chain, --silence, --compact, artifact handling) is mentioned.

2 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is stated clearly (send a request to a CCB agent with ask), but the "when" is entirely absent — there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 2 because the "what" is concrete rather than vague.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The only candidate keywords are "request", "CCB agent", and "ask"; there are no natural phrases a user would say (no "delegate", "collaboration", "subagent", "handoff", or similar synonyms). This is one or two generic keywords with the natural phrases users say missing, and it is above 1 only because "CCB agent" and "ask" do anchor it to a real domain.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"CCB agent" and the specific tool name `ask` carve out a clear niche that most other skills would not trigger on, giving mostly distinct triggers with minor overlap risk with generic messaging/delegation skills. It is not 5 because the description is so terse that it gives little positive trigger surface to distinguish it from other communication-style skills.

4 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
SeemSeam/claude_codex_bridge
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.