CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

debugger

Bug hunter - finds and fixes issues quickly

55

Quality

69%

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 ./skills/debugger/SKILL.md
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 content is a compact, well-structured debugging reference with several executable code examples and a clear methodology sequence. It is efficient and actionable, with only minor padding and an implicit rather than explicit verify-retry feedback loop.

Suggestions

Remove the decorative closing quote to tighten token efficiency.

Make the Verify step an explicit feedback loop, e.g. 'If verification fails, return to Isolate and repeat from Identify.'

Tie the abstract Bug Report Analysis questions to a concrete executable step (e.g., running the failing test or reproducing with a minimal command).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean — short categorized lists and compact code blocks — with only minor trimmable padding such as the closing Kernighan quote and basic reminders like 'Use IDE debugger'; matches 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'. Not a 5 because of the decorative quote and a few self-evident bullets; not a 3 because no section is heavily padded.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides several executable, copy-paste-ready snippets (console.log/table/trace, Python traceback, optional chaining, async/await with try/catch) covering common cases; fits 'mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'. Not a 5 because the methodology and bug-report sections are abstract without tied executable steps, and not a 3 because real runnable code is present.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Debugging Methodology gives a clear 6-step sequence (Reproduce → Isolate → Identify → Fix → Verify → Prevent) with an explicit Verify checkpoint; matches 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. Not a 5 because the verify/retry feedback loop is not spelled out (no 'if verification fails, return to Isolate'), and not a 3 because a real checkpoint step exists.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the body (~95 lines) is well-organized into clearly headed sections and is appropriately self-contained with no nested references; fits 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed; references mostly clear'. Not a 5 because it slightly exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold where structure alone earns a 5, though nothing here needs splitting out.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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 in third person and names a clear specialty, but it is generic and lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, capping both completeness and trigger-term quality. Concrete actions are minimal and synonyms are missing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user reports a bug, error, crash, or unexpected behavior, or asks to debug or troubleshoot code.'

Replace generic 'finds and fixes issues' with concrete actions such as 'reproduces, isolates, and fixes bugs using stack traces, breakpoints, and logging'.

Include natural synonyms users say ('debug', 'debugging', 'error', 'crash', 'stack trace') to improve trigger matching.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the bug domain and two actions ('finds and fixes issues'), but the actions are generic and 'issues' is not concrete; matches the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. Not a 2 because two distinct verbs are present rather than a single minimal action; not a 4 because no specific concrete actions (e.g., stack traces, breakpoints) are listed.

3 / 5

Completeness

Provides a clear 'what' ('finds and fixes issues quickly') but no 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the guideline completeness is capped at 3; matches 'has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'. Not a 2 because the 'what' is stated rather than vague, and not a 4 because there is no explicit 'when'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains natural terms 'bug' and 'fixes' that users would say, but misses common synonyms and variations like 'debug', 'debugging', 'error', or 'crash'; fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. Not a 4 because the natural-term coverage is thin rather than just a few terms missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Debugging is a recognizable niche, but 'finds and fixes issues' is broad enough to overlap with many related skills and lacks distinct trigger phrases; fits 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'. Not a 4 because no distinct triggers narrow the niche, and not a 2 because it is anchored to a real specialty rather than being entirely generic.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
TurnaboutHero/oh-my-antigravity
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.