CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

create-issue-gate

Use when starting a new implementation task and an issue must be created with strict acceptance criteria gating before execution.

Quality

78%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/create-issue-gate/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is create-issue-gate in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

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 lean, highly actionable policy document: the acceptance-criteria gate is defined with concrete valid/invalid examples, exact status strings, and a copy-paste issue template, and the workflow includes an explicit blocking checkpoint with a feedback loop. The only gaps are minor: the gh command invocation is never shown and the done/verified-with-evidence step lacks a method.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body contains only skill-specific policy (gate rule, required sections, status semantics) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; the only repetition — the field list inside the template — is justified as a copy-paste artifact. Every token earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete throughout: `gh issue create` is named, a full body template is provided, valid/invalid acceptance-criteria examples are given, and exact strings for statuses and the execution-gate line are specified. Not 5 because the actual `gh issue create` invocation (title, flags, body-file handling) is only mentioned, never shown.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sections follow the natural sequence (define fields → create → gate → set status → handoff) with the acceptance-criteria gate as an explicit checkpoint and a feedback loop ("If issue is `draft`, stop and request user-provided acceptance criteria"). Not 5 because terminal verification is underspecified — "`done`: acceptance criteria verified with evidence" names no evidence method, and how the gate becomes `allowed` is only implied.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, and assets/ are absent) and none are needed: the ~81-line body is core policy with no reference-grade bulk, organized under clear, well-ordered section headers and free of buried or nested references. This matches the simple-skill pattern of a well-organized single file scoring full marks.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 has a clear, explicit trigger and identifies a distinct workflow niche, but it never states the skill's capabilities directly — the what is buried inside a conditional when-clause — and it lacks synonyms users might naturally use. It is functional but below the quality of the best examples.

Suggestions

Lead with a third-person capability statement (e.g., "Creates GitHub issues with required sections (Problem, Goal, Scope, Acceptance Criteria) and blocks execution until criteria are testable.") followed by the Use-when clause, so the what is explicit rather than embedded in the trigger.

Add natural trigger synonyms users might say, such as "ticket", "task", "backlog item", or "acceptance criteria", to improve trigger-term coverage.

Make the when-condition non-circular by replacing "an issue must be created" with the situations that call for it, e.g., "Use when starting a new implementation task that needs a tracked issue before work begins."

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (issue creation with "strict acceptance criteria gating") and one concrete action, but phrases it as an obligation rather than listing capabilities, so it sits between the minimal-actions anchor (2) and several-specific-actions anchor (4).

3 / 5

Completeness

An explicit "Use when..." trigger is present, and the what (create issues gated on acceptance criteria) is stated, but only embedded inside the conditional clause rather than as a standalone capability statement, and the trigger is somewhat circular ("when an issue must be created"). It exceeds anchor 3 (what only weakly implied) but falls short of anchor 5's fully explicit what-and-when pairing.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like "starting a new implementation task", "issue", and "acceptance criteria" are natural user language, but common variations such as "ticket", "backlog", "user story", or "task tracking" are missing, matching the anchor for some relevant keywords without synonyms.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "strict acceptance criteria gating before execution" niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against generic issue- or project-management skills, since "starting a new implementation task" is a fairly broad trigger.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 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

Path

plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/create-issue-gate/SKILL.md

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.