CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

bash-pro

Master of defensive Bash scripting for production automation, CI/CD pipelines, and system utilities. Expert in safe, portable, and testable shell scripts.

71

1.45x
Quality

60%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

87%

1.45x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/bash-pro/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is bash-pro in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%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 content is highly actionable with extensive executable code snippets and good sectioning, but it is verbose with redundant sections, lacks explicit mid-workflow validation checkpoints for destructive operations, and keeps reference-grade material inlined rather than progressively disclosed to separate files.

Suggestions

Consolidate the three overlapping safety/security sections (Safety, Safety & Security Patterns, Security Scanning & Hardening) into one to reduce redundancy and length.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the Instructions workflow (e.g. 'Run ShellCheck and a dry-run before applying destructive changes') to lift workflow clarity above the destructive-ops cap.

Move the reference-heavy material (Essential Tools, Modern Bash Features, CI/CD Integration, References & Further Reading) into separate bundle files under references/ and link to them, keeping SKILL.md a lean overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows and uses dense bullets, but at ~300 lines it is noticeably long with overlapping sections (Safety, Safety & Security Patterns, Security Scanning & Hardening; Approach vs Advanced Techniques) that could be consolidated, matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

It provides abundant copy-paste-ready, executable snippets covering common cases (e.g. `set -Eeuo pipefail`, `trap 'rm -rf "$tmpdir"' EXIT`, `readarray -d '' files < <(find . -print0)`, `log_info() { logger -t ... }`, `jq -n --arg key "$value"`), matching the fully-executable anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 'Instructions' section lists a 4-step sequence (define inputs/outputs/failure modes, strict mode, core logic, tests/linting), but because the skill covers destructive and batch operations (rm -rf, file ops) with validation only as a final step and no mid-flow checkpoints, the rubric caps workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-organized with clear section headers, but it is a monolithic ~300-line file with reference-like material (tool listings, per-version Bash 5.x features, CI/CD configs) inlined rather than split into sub-files, and no bundle references exist, matching the 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' anchor.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

56%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.

The description is domain-clear and uses natural trigger terms in third person, but it relies on expertise claims rather than concrete actions and omits an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, capping completeness at 3.

Suggestions

Replace expertise claims with concrete actions, e.g. 'Writes, reviews, and hardens Bash scripts for CI/CD, automation, and system utilities.'

Add an explicit trigger clause: 'Use when writing or reviewing Bash/shell scripts for automation, CI/CD pipelines, or ops tooling.'

Include common synonyms/extensions users say (e.g. '.sh files', 'shell scripting') to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Phrases like 'Master of defensive Bash scripting' and 'Expert in safe, portable, and testable shell scripts' name the domain and qualities but use expertise claims rather than concrete actions (no verbs like 'writes', 'reviews', 'lints'), matching the 'names domain but actions minimal/generic' anchor and falling short of listing 1-2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' (defensive Bash scripting for automation/CI/CD/utilities) but contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric cap completeness cannot exceed 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'Bash scripting', 'automation', 'CI/CD pipelines', and 'shell scripts' are natural terms users would say, giving good keyword coverage; a few natural synonyms (e.g. '.sh files', 'shell scripting') are missing, so it sits just below the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Defensive Bash scripting' is a clear, mostly distinct niche with minimal conflict risk; the broad 'system utilities'/'automation' phrasing leaves minor overlap with general scripting skills, placing it just below the minimal-conflict anchor.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
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.