CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

dynamic-agent-lifecycle

Historical reference for script-owned dynamic-agent lifecycle actions. Do not use from provider sessions.

66

Quality

78%

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 ./docs/plantree/plans/agentic-loop-workflow/drafts/agentroles.ccb_orchestrator/adapters/ccb/skills/dynamic-agent-lifecycle/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%

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 tight, well-structured boundary reference that tells the provider exactly what not to touch and precisely how to reply, with no wasted tokens. It fully satisfies the rubric for a simple instruction-only skill across conciseness, actionability, workflow clarity, and organization.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and bullet-driven with no filler and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; it assumes competence and every line carries domain-specific information (boundary rules, reply shape), matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, specific guidance: explicit prohibitions ('Do not add, hide, park, resume, remove, release, or inspect agents') and a precise reply checklist (role/reason, blockers, readiness, citations); per the scoring notes, the absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-purpose skill whose single action — 'reply with semantic evidence only' with a defined component list — is unambiguous, satisfying the simple-skill allowance that workflow clarity can score 3 when the action is clear; the Provider Boundary and Reply Shape sections sequence the constraint then the response format.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and needs no external references (none of references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist); per the rubric note, well-organized sections alone warrant a 3, and the Provider Boundary and Reply Shape headers provide clear structure.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

57%

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 identifies a narrow niche and is free of fluff, but it is framed as a do-not-use historical reference rather than an active skill, so it lacks a positive use trigger and leans on system jargon over natural user keywords. Completeness and trigger quality are consequently capped.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause (e.g., 'Consult when reviewing runner-owned agent lifecycle history') so the 'when' is positive rather than only a prohibition.

Soften jargon with at least one natural phrasing a user might say (e.g., 'agent role lifecycle' or 'helper role lifecycle') to improve trigger-term quality.

If the skill is genuinely deprecated, consider stating what to use instead so the description conveys actionable guidance rather than only a boundary.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase 'Historical reference for script-owned dynamic-agent lifecycle actions' names a clear domain and a framing action (reference), but does not enumerate multiple concrete actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions' anchor; it is not vague (so not 1) yet not comprehensive (so not 3).

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill is ('Historical reference for script-owned dynamic-agent lifecycle actions') but provides no positive 'Use when...' trigger guidance, instead giving a negative directive ('Do not use from provider sessions'); per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant domain keywords like 'dynamic-agent lifecycle actions' and 'provider sessions', but these are system jargon rather than the natural phrasing a user would say, and common variations are absent — matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is sharply defined — a retained historical reference for runner-owned lifecycle actions, explicitly excluded from provider sessions — making it clearly distinguishable and unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

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
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.