pipeline

Sunset stub — use $plan and $team directly instead

Quality

52%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/pipeline/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%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 body is a concise deprecation notice that clearly states $pipeline is removed and where to migrate, but it offers only high-level migration direction without concrete examples of how to translate a $pipeline call into $plan/$team.

Suggestions

Add one concrete before/after example showing a $pipeline invocation rewritten as $plan and $team calls to lift actionability.

Remove or shorten the rationale sentence ("configurable stage sequencing overlapped...") since Claude does not need the history to perform the migration.

Clarify the decision rule for choosing $plan vs $team vs $ultragoal instead of "as the task warrants" to improve workflow clarity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is brief and assumes competence, but the sentence explaining why pipeline was removed ("configurable stage sequencing overlapped $plan ... without a unique runtime") is rationale a deprecation notice could trim, fitting the "efficient; minor instances of over-explanation" anchor rather than the fully-lean score-5 case.	4 / 5
Actionability	The migration guidance "replace $pipeline with explicit $plan and $team invocations as the task warrants" is a high-level hint with no concrete commands or examples, matching the "minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps" anchor.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A single migration action is present (replace $pipeline with $plan/$team), but the qualifier "as the task warrants" leaves which tool to use when unresolved, placing it between the clear-single-action score-4 and the ambiguous score-2 cases at the "steps present but checkpoints missing or implicit" anchor.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is under 50 lines with a clear heading and short labeled sections and needs no external references (none of the references/scripts/assets bundles exist), fitting the well-organized simple-skill case just below the score-5 ideal.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

28%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.

This is a deprecation stub description, not a capability description: it says the skill is removed and points to $plan/$team instead. It scores poorly on completeness and specificity because it never states a concrete capability or explicit use trigger.

Suggestions

If the skill must remain discoverable, add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when migrating code that invokes $pipeline' so the 'when' is concrete.

State the capability explicitly even for a stub, e.g. 'Redirects legacy $pipeline invocations to $plan and $team', to raise specificity above the minimal-actions anchor.

Avoid name-only overlap with $plan and $team in the description, or frame the trigger around migration specifically to reduce conflict risk.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the replacement domain ("$plan" and "$team") but states no concrete actions of the skill itself — it only says "use $plan and $team directly instead", matching the "names the domain but actions are minimal or generic" anchor rather than the score-1 purely-vague case.	2 / 5
Completeness	"Sunset stub" is a vague 'what' and there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the guideline caps completeness at 3 when that clause is missing, and here the 'what' is also vague, placing it at the score-2 anchor.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It surfaces the tokens "$plan" and "$team" that a user might name, but lacks the natural trigger phrases users actually say when they need this skill, fitting the "one or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases" anchor.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Naming "$plan" and "$team" gives it a somewhat specific niche, but those same tokens create overlap risk with those skills, fitting the "somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills" anchor rather than the more distinct score-4 case.	3 / 5
	Total	9 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex
Path: skills/pipeline/SKILL.md
Commit: 1dcf513

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.