CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

kaizen

Guide for continuous improvement, error proofing, and standardization. Use this skill when the user wants to improve code quality, refactor, or discuss process improvements.

52

Quality

59%

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/kaizen/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 well-organized and genuinely actionable with concrete code and sequenced practices, but it is markedly verbose due to repeated restatements of the same four pillars and lacks any progressive disclosure despite its length. Tightening the redundancy and splitting deep-dive material into reference files would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Collapse the Principles / In Practice / Red Flags / Remember restatements into a single canonical treatment per pillar to remove the four-fold repetition driving the conciseness score down.

Move the extensive Good/Bad TypeScript example sets into a references/ file (e.g. EXAMPLES.md) and keep one compact example per pillar inline, signaled with a clear link.

Trim illustrative code that restates the same point (e.g. the three calculateTotal iterations) to the single most representative snippet plus a one-line note on the progression.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~725-line body restates the same four pillars four times (Principles, In Practice, Red Flags, Remember) and includes many illustrative Good/Bad code blocks that pad rather than add new guidance. This matches anchor 2 (noticeably verbose; several unnecessary padded sections) rather than 3, since the redundancy is pervasive, not occasional.

2 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, executable TypeScript examples (e.g. the iterated calculateTotal, branded PositiveNumber, Result type) plus specific 'In Practice' directives like 'Fix one smell at a time' and 'Commit after each improvement'. This fits anchor 4 (mostly executable guidance with minor gaps) rather than 5, because the examples illustrate patterns rather than task-specific copy-paste for common cases.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sequences such as 'When implementing features: 1. Start with simplest version ... 3. Test and verify' and 'When refactoring: Keep tests passing throughout' are clearly ordered with explicit verify checkpoints. This matches anchor 4 (clear sequence with most checkpoints present) rather than 5, which expects formal validate-fix-retry feedback loops these advisory loops lack.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with headers (four pillars, principles, in practice, red flags), but it is a 725-line monolith with no bundle files and no references, so material that could live in separate files (the extensive code examples, per-pillar deep dives) is fully inline. This fits anchor 3 (some structure, content that should be separate is inline) rather than 4, which expects appropriately split content.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

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 cleanly answers both what and when with an explicit 'Use this skill when...' clause, but its actions are abstract ('Guide for') rather than concrete and its triggers overlap heavily with general coding tasks. It is structurally sound yet light on specificity and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Replace the generic 'Guide for' with concrete verbs describing what the skill does, e.g. 'Apply incremental improvement, error-proofing, and standardization patterns to code and workflows.'

Broaden trigger coverage with natural synonyms users actually say, such as 'clean up code', 'reduce technical debt', 'code review', or 'follow best practices'.

Tighten distinctiveness by leading with the kaizen/poka-yoke framing so the skill reads as a distinct methodology rather than generic refactoring help.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("continuous improvement, error proofing, and standardization") but the only action verb is the generic "Guide for", with no concrete operations analogous to "extract", "fill", or "merge". This matches anchor 2 (names the domain but actions are minimal or generic) rather than 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly states what ("Guide for continuous improvement, error proofing, and standardization") and when ("Use this skill when the user wants to improve code quality, refactor, or discuss process improvements") with concrete trigger phrases, paralleling the anchor-5 commit-message example. Both what and when are present and explicit, so it does not drop to 4.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural phrases users say ("improve code quality", "refactor", "process improvements"), but coverage lacks common synonyms and variations such as "clean up code", "code review", "technical debt", or "best practices". This fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords but missing common variations) better than 4, which expects broader keyword coverage.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The error-proofing/standardization framing gives it some niche, but the primary triggers ("refactor", "improve code quality") are extremely broad and would overlap with general coding assistance and many other skills. This matches anchor 3 (somewhat specific but could still overlap) rather than 4, which requires mostly distinct triggers.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

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

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (733 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

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.