autopilot
Full autonomous execution from idea to working code
30
23%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/autopilot/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is extremely vague and provides almost no useful information for skill selection. It lacks concrete actions, natural trigger terms, explicit 'when to use' guidance, and any distinguishing characteristics that would differentiate it from other coding-related skills.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract phrase with specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Scaffolds projects, generates code files, runs tests, and iterates on implementation based on requirements.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to build something from scratch, create a new project, or implement a feature end-to-end.'
Narrow the scope to a distinct niche to reduce conflict risk — specify what types of projects, languages, or workflows this skill handles that others do not.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language ('full autonomous execution', 'idea to working code') without naming any concrete actions like generating files, running tests, or setting up projects. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is extremely vague (no specific capabilities listed) and there is no 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance whatsoever. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | No natural keywords a user would actually say. Terms like 'autonomous execution' and 'idea to working code' are abstract concepts, not trigger terms users would use in requests. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Extremely generic — 'idea to working code' could apply to virtually any coding skill, making it highly likely to conflict with other code-related skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
47%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill has strong workflow clarity with well-defined phases, validation gates, stop conditions, and a final checklist. However, it suffers from significant verbosity — the deep-interview/ralplan integration is explained three times, and several sections (Why_This_Exists, Use_When) add little value for Claude. The actionability is moderate: while file paths and tool patterns are specific, the core execution mechanics lack concrete, executable examples.
Suggestions
Consolidate the deep-interview and 3-stage pipeline explanations into a single section or external reference file — currently the same information appears in Steps (Phase 0), Advanced (Deep Interview Integration), and Advanced (3-Stage Pipeline).
Remove the 'Why_This_Exists' section entirely — Claude doesn't need motivation for following instructions, and this adds ~40 tokens of zero-value content.
Add concrete, executable tool invocation examples in Tool_Usage (e.g., actual Task() call syntax with parameters) rather than abstract descriptions.
Move the Advanced section's Deep Interview Integration and 3-Stage Pipeline content to a separate referenced file (e.g., docs/pipeline-integration.md) to reduce the main skill's token footprint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with significant redundancy. The 3-stage pipeline explanation is repeated multiple times (in Steps, Advanced, and Deep Interview Integration sections). Sections like 'Why_This_Exists' and 'Use_When'/'Do_Not_Use_When' explain things Claude can infer. The deep-interview integration is explained three separate times across the document. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a clear phase-based workflow with specific file paths and tool invocations (e.g., Task subagent types, state file locations, config JSONC schema). However, there's no executable code — the tool usage patterns are described abstractly rather than with concrete, copy-paste-ready invocations. The config example is concrete but the core execution mechanics remain high-level. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with clear phase sequencing, explicit validation checkpoints (QA cycles with retry limits, multi-reviewer approval gates), well-defined stop conditions (same error 3 times, 3 re-validation rounds), and a final checklist. The conditional skip logic for pre-existing plans/specs is clearly specified with file path patterns. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References external files like `docs/company-context-interface.md` and config paths, and has an Advanced section for configuration/troubleshooting. However, the main body is monolithic and overly long — the deep-interview integration details and 3-stage pipeline explanation should be in a separate referenced file rather than duplicated inline. No bundle files are provided to verify referenced paths exist. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode
- Commit
679b418
- 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.