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.

75

Quality

92%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured instruction-only skill: concrete output template and numbered workflow make it actionable, with clear sequencing and checkpoints, and sensible single-file organization. The main weakness is conciseness — the evidence-vs-inference point and the Quality-bar checklist repeat earlier sections and could be consolidated.

Suggestions

Consolidate the evidence-vs-inference guidance into one authoritative section; the distinction is currently restated in the contract, Evidence rules, Question-aligned synthesis, Working method, Output contract, and Quality bar.

Trim or remove the Quality bar list — its items largely restate rules already specified above (read-only, ranked, confidence, file references, evidence-vs-inference), so it adds tokens without new guidance.

Merge the 'Execution policy' and 'Working method' sections, which overlap on outcome-first reporting and sequencing, to remove redundancy.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~140-line body is mostly efficient methodology with no beginner-concept padding, but the evidence-vs-inference distinction is restated in five sections and the 10-item Quality bar repeats points already covered, so it could be tightened; not a 3 because not every token earns its place.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: a 7-step Working method and an Output contract with a literal table template ('| Rank | Explanation | Confidence | Basis |') and 'path/to/file:line-line' examples; for an instruction-only skill this is fully actionable, not merely descriptive.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Working method gives a clear 1–7 sequence with checkpoints (read direct evidence, rank by support, separate evidence from inference, stop condition) and explicit evidence-labeling validation; the task is read-only so the destructive-feedback-loop cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so this is a single-file methodology skill organized into well-signaled sections (Use when / Do not use / contract / evidence rules / working method / output contract); nothing inline obviously belongs in a separate reference, matching the simple-skill allowance for a well-organized single file.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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 description: concrete capabilities, natural trigger terms, explicit what-and-when guidance, and a clear read-only niche that distinguishes it from implementation skills. Voice is imperative ('Run') rather than first/second person, so no voice penalty applies.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'read-only deep repository analysis', 'ranked synthesis', 'explicit confidence', 'concrete file references', 'evidence-vs-inference boundaries' — matching the score-3 anchor of multiple specific concrete actions; not merely naming a domain.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Run read-only deep repository analysis and return a ranked synthesis...') and when ('Use when a user says...') with an explicit trigger clause, matching the score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Cites natural phrases a user would actually say — 'analyze', 'investigate', 'why does', 'what's causing' — giving good coverage of common variations rather than technical jargon, matching the score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The read-only, ranked-synthesis, evidence-vs-inference framing carves a clear niche distinct from implementation/fix skills, with specific triggers unlikely to fire for the wrong skill; not a 2 because it is not merely 'somewhat specific' with overlap.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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
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.