CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

error-debugging-multi-agent-review

Use when working with error debugging multi agent review

32

Quality

26%

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-claude/skills/error-debugging-multi-agent-review/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is error-debugging-multi-agent-review in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

25%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 verbose, concept-heavy overview padded with non-executable pseudocode stubs and no real workflow checkpoints. It also fails progressive disclosure by inlining everything and referencing a non-existent playbook file.

Suggestions

Replace stub functions with executable, copy-paste-ready code or concrete commands, removing placeholders like '# Intelligent merging logic'.

Cut the conceptual preamble (Depth/Breadth/Intelligence, extensibility, generic best practices) that Claude already knows to tighten token use.

Provide a real sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints (e.g. route agents -> run reviews -> validate synthesis -> report), or create the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' and link to it cleanly.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is padded with conceptual framing Claude already knows (Depth/Breadth/Intelligence bullets, the 'sophisticated AI-powered' preamble, generic best practices) across ~220 lines that could be far shorter.

2 / 5

Actionability

All code blocks are non-executable stubs relying on undefined functions (is_web_application, ConflictResolutionEngine, QualityScoreCalculator) and contain placeholders like '# Intelligent merging logic', giving high-level structure without runnable steps.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The seven numbered 'coordination strategies' describe architectural components rather than a sequenced user workflow, and there are no validation checkpoints or error-recovery loops for the review process.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is monolithically inlined in SKILL.md with no bundle files present, and the single reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' points to a file that does not exist.

2 / 5

Total

8

/

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.

The description is a near-tautological placeholder that restates the skill name as its only content, giving neither concrete capabilities nor natural trigger phrases. It is marginally above pure vagueness only because it names a recognizable niche.

Suggestions

State 2-4 concrete actions the skill performs (e.g. 'Coordinates specialized review agents to analyze code for security, architecture, and performance issues').

Add natural user-facing trigger phrases (e.g. 'Use when the user asks for multi-perspective code review or multi-agent review of a project').

Separate the 'what' (capability) from the 'when' (trigger) in two clear clauses so both are explicit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a domain ('error debugging multi agent review') but provides zero concrete actions; it only restates the domain rather than describing what the skill does, sitting just above the pure-vagueness anchor.

2 / 5

Completeness

It has a 'when' trigger ('Use when working with...') but no real 'what' — the capability is left unspecified, matching the anchor where only 'when' is present without 'what'.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'error debugging multi agent review' is mostly jargon/technical phrasing rather than natural terms a user would say, though 'error debugging' is a mildly relevant keyword.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'multi agent review' identifies a fairly specific niche, but the phrasing is vague enough to overlap with general debugging or code-review skills.

3 / 5

Total

9

/

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.