CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

analyze

Run read-only deep repository analysis and return a ranked synthesis with explicit confidence, concrete file references, and clear evidence-vs-inference boundaries. Use when a user says 'analyze', 'investigate', 'why does', 'what's causing', or needs grounded cross-file explanation before any changes are proposed.

74

Quality

93%

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

The canonical home for this skill is analyze in Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%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.

A tight, well-structured instruction-only skill body that delegates shared invariants cleanly and gives a concrete method plus output template. The main gap is the absence of a worked, filled-in example and an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow.

Suggestions

Add one short worked example showing the output contract filled in for a representative 'why does X happen' question, so the template is unambiguous in practice.

Insert an explicit evidence-sufficiency validation checkpoint in the method (e.g., 'Before writing Ranked synthesis, confirm each row's Basis is backed by at least one cited Evidence line') to push workflow_clarity toward the top anchor.

Trim the slight redundancy between 'Evidence discipline' ('never overclaim certainty') and 'Stop conditions' ('report the limit explicitly rather than manufacturing certainty') by consolidating into one statement.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and well-organized with no concept padding (no explanation of what a repo or analysis is); it externalizes shared invariants to AGENTS.md via a single pointer rather than duplicating them. The minor overlap between 'Evidence discipline' and 'Stop conditions' on overclaiming is negligible.

5 / 5

Actionability

Gives a concrete 5-step method and a copy-paste-ready output-contract template (Ranked synthesis table, Evidence/Inference/Unknowns sections), but lacks a filled worked example showing the template applied to a real question, leaving a minor gap.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 'Inputs and method' section is a clearly numbered sequence with an explicit stop condition (step 5) and a sufficiency check, but there is no explicit validation step or error-recovery feedback loop beyond naming the next read-only probe, so it sits just below the top anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Acts as a clean overview that externalizes shared operating/delegation/state/hook rules to a single well-signaled, one-level-deep reference (templates/AGENTS.md), with content appropriately split and easy to navigate; no nested or buried references.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

A strong, third-person description that clearly states what the skill does and when to invoke it, with natural trigger terms and a distinctive read-only analysis niche. It avoids vague fluff and over-claims entirely.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions/deliverables — 'run read-only deep repository analysis', 'return a ranked synthesis with explicit confidence, concrete file references, and clear evidence-vs-inference boundaries' — giving comprehensive coverage rather than vague language.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (read-only ranked synthesis with confidence, file refs, evidence/inference boundaries) and 'when' (Use when a user says 'analyze', 'investigate', 'why does', 'what's causing'), with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Provides several natural trigger phrases a user would actually say — 'analyze', 'investigate', 'why does', 'what's causing' — plus a descriptive trigger ('grounded cross-file explanation'), covering synonyms of the intent.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Carves a clear read-only causal-explanation niche ('before any changes are proposed', evidence-vs-inference discipline) with distinct triggers, minimizing overlap with edit/implementation skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex
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.