CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

lightning-channel-factories

Technical reference on Lightning Network channel factories, multi-party channels, LSP architectures, and Bitcoin Layer 2 scaling without soft forks. Covers Decker-Wattenhofer, timeout trees, MuSig2 key aggregation, HTLC/PTLC forwarding, and watchtower breach detection.

Quality

56%

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 ./skills/lightning-channel-factories/SKILL.md
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 essentially a promotional pointer to an external GitHub project padded with generic template instructions and sections that duplicate the frontmatter description. Despite claiming to be a technical reference, it contains no actual reference material, code, or actionable guidance.

Suggestions

Replace the generic Instructions filler ("Clarify goals... Apply relevant best practices...") with concrete, task-specific guidance, e.g. actual review steps for a channel factory implementation or code excerpts showing Decker-Wattenhofer/timeout-tree construction.

Delete the duplicated "Purpose" and "Key Topics" sections, which restate the frontmatter description and the SuperScalar paragraph.

Either add real reference material as bundled files (e.g. references/ on factory construction, MuSig2 signing flows, watchtower breach handling) or reframe the body as substantive reference content instead of links to an external repository.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Noticeably padded: the "Purpose" section restates the description nearly verbatim, "Key Topics" re-lists the SuperScalar paragraph as bullets, and the "Instructions" bullets ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs. Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.") are generic filler that add nothing.

2 / 5

Actionability

No concrete code, commands, or steps anywhere in the body; it only describes and points elsewhere ("For a production implementation... refer to the SuperScalar project: <URL>"). This matches 'entirely vague or abstract; only describes rather than instructs'.

1 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The three generic bullets (clarify goals → apply best practices → provide steps) form at best a rough, poorly defined sequence with no validation checkpoints — template text rather than a task-specific workflow — matching 'rough sequence present but many gaps; validation absent'.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is short, uses clear section headers, and links are one level deep (external URLs, no bundle files exist). Minor organizational gaps: the SuperScalar promotional paragraph sits under "Instructions" though it is not an instruction, and the Purpose/Key Topics sections duplicate other content.

4 / 5

Total

9

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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.

A highly specific, distinctive description for a well-defined Lightning Network niche, weakened only by the missing 'Use when' clause and a few absent natural trigger terms. Adding explicit usage triggers would raise it to the top tier.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when building or reviewing Lightning channel factory implementations, payment-channel infrastructure, or Bitcoin Layer 2 designs."

Include additional natural trigger terms users would say, such as "payment channels" or "eltoo/duplex channels", alongside the existing protocol jargon.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several specific concrete topics ("Decker-Wattenhofer, timeout trees, MuSig2 key aggregation, HTLC/PTLC forwarding, and watchtower breach detection"), but the stated action is only the generic "Technical reference on... Covers", so it falls below the comprehensive-concrete-actions anchor of 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' ("Technical reference on Lightning Network channel factories...") but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage including synonym pairs ("HTLC/PTLC", "LSP architectures", "multi-party channels") that Lightning developers would naturally say, but misses common natural phrases like "payment channels" or "duplex channels". Fits 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Lightning Network channel factories, multi-party channels, LSP architectures" is a clear niche with distinct, highly specific triggers (Decker-Wattenhofer, MuSig2, watchtower); minimal conflict risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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

skills/lightning-channel-factories/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.