CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

issues

Interact with GitHub issues - create, list, and view issues.

56

Quality

64%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 concrete gh commands, body templates, and a clear branching workflow supported by error handling. Its weaknesses are verbosity from repeated inlined question scaffolding and the absence of progressive disclosure into separate reference files.

Suggestions

Condense the repeated AskUserQuestion blocks into brief 'ask the user for X' instructions to cut roughly half the body length.

Extract the full question/option scaffolding and body templates into a reference file (e.g. references/templates.md) and link to it from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Replace the literal '--label "[labels]"' placeholder with conditional guidance so the create command is fully copy-paste ready.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

At ~248 lines the body repeats full AskUserQuestion scaffolding six-plus times and includes guidance sections ('Title guidelines', 'Description guidelines') that could be trimmed; it avoids concept-explanation fluff (no explanation of GitHub or issues), so it is mostly efficient but noticeably tighten-able, fitting anchor 3 rather than the verbose anchor 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable commands ('gh issue create', 'gh issue list --assignee @me', 'gh issue view [number]'), body templates, and a HEREDOC example; minor gaps like the literal '--label "[labels]"' placeholder keep it at 'mostly executable; minor gaps' rather than the fully-copy-paste anchor 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear Step 1 → 5a / 3b / 3c sequencing across the three branches, plus a success-confirmation checkpoint ('show the URL') and an Error Handling feedback loop; lacks an explicit validate-then-proceed loop, fitting 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the skill is a single monolithic document with good section headers, but the repeated question scaffolding is inlined rather than split into a reference file; at 248 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception, fitting 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 specific and names three concrete GitHub-issue actions, with a distinctive niche and natural trigger phrasing. Its main weakness is the missing 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when the user wants to create, list, or view GitHub issues via the gh CLI.'

Broaden trigger coverage with common synonyms such as 'tickets' or 'bug reports' to improve trigger-term quality.

Consider mentioning the gh CLI explicitly in the description to sharpen distinctiveness from any general GitHub skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes 'create, list, and view issues' — three concrete actions named alongside the GitHub issues domain, matching the 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor; not 5 because coverage omits comment/close/edit/assign, not 3 because it exceeds 1-2 actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

The description clearly states the 'what' ('Interact with GitHub issues - create, list, and view issues') but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'GitHub issues' is a natural phrase a user would actually say, reinforced by the concrete verbs create/list/view; a few synonyms (tickets, bugs) are missing, so it fits 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the single-keyword anchor 3.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'GitHub issues' is a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, but it could overlap with a broader GitHub skill, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the fully-distinct anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

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.