CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

gitnexus-impact-analysis

Use when the user wants to know what will break if they change something, or needs safety analysis before editing code. Examples: "Is it safe to change X?", "What depends on this?", "What will break?"

66

Quality

79%

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 ./.claude/skills/gitnexus-impact-analysis/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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 high-quality, action-dense skill body with concrete tool calls, CLI fallbacks, explicit validation checkpoints, and clear risk-gating guidance. The only real slack is minor verbosity in a few explanatory paragraphs and the lack of any reference split (which the skill does not need).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence (no padding about what git/MCP/worktrees are), with every section earning its place via concrete tool calls; a few explanatory prose blocks (the UNKNOWN rationale, the worktree false-clean explanation) could be tightened, keeping it just below the lean anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready tool calls with full parameter objects, CLI fallback commands, and concrete example outputs covering the common single-repo and multi-repo cases, matching the fully-executable anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

It gives a numbered 0-4 workflow, an explicit checklist, and strong validation/feedback loops for a safety-gating task (staleness checks, partial/truncated re-run guidance, 'stop on UNKNOWN', confirm-the-diffed-checkout), matching the clear-sequence-with-explicit-validation-and-checklists anchor.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed; the single file is cohesive single-skill content with clear section headers and easy navigation, but it is a dense ~120-line file rather than the under-50-line simple-skill case, so it sits at good-structure rather than the top anchor.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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, trigger-rich description that leads with an explicit 'Use when' clause and concrete example phrases. Its main weakness is that the capability ('what') is expressed through user-need framing instead of a declarative skill-capability sentence.

Suggestions

Lead with a declarative capability sentence (e.g., 'Analyzes the blast radius of code changes and reports what will break') before the 'Use when' clause so the 'what' is explicit and not embedded in user-need language.

Broaden trigger coverage beyond the breakage theme with a couple more natural variants (e.g., 'blast radius', 'who calls this', 'safe to refactor') to push trigger quality toward comprehensive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain (safety/impact analysis before code edits) and one or two concrete actions ('know what will break', 'safety analysis'), but these are framed as user-need outcomes rather than a list of several specific skill capabilities, so it sits at the domain-plus-1-2-actions anchor rather than the comprehensive anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

It has an explicit 'Use when...' clause and concrete trigger examples (answering 'when' clearly), and the 'what' is stated ('what will break', 'safety analysis'), but the capability is embedded in user-need language rather than a clean standalone declarative statement, so it is just below the anchor that explicitly answers both with a declarative what.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces several natural phrases users actually say ('Is it safe to change X?', 'What depends on this?', 'What will break?') plus 'safety analysis before editing code', giving good keyword coverage with synonyms, though the triggers are variations on one theme rather than a fully diverse set.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Impact/blast-radius analysis before edits is a clear niche with distinctive triggers ('what will break', 'blast radius', 'what depends on this'), with only minor overlap risk against general code-review or refactoring skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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
abhigyanpatwari/GitNexus
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.