CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

oss-hunter

Automatically hunt for high-impact OSS contribution opportunities in trending repositories.

49

Quality

53%

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/oss-hunter/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%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 presents a clear four-phase workflow with reasonable structure and an honest Limitations section, but the single code example uses placeholder arguments, the phases are descriptive rather than executable, and validation/feedback loops are absent for a batch operation. Trimming marketing fluff and adding concrete, runnable commands with verification gates would lift conciseness and workflow_clarity.

Suggestions

Replace the placeholder `owner/repo` with a concrete worked example (e.g. a real `gh issue list` call and its expected output) so Phase 2 is copy-paste ready.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint after Phase 3 (e.g. confirm the issue is still open and unassigned, and that a repro snippet exists) before generating the dossier, since this is a batch operation.

Remove non-skill padding (the 'top-tier contributor' framing, 'Contributing to the Matrix', and branding footer) to tighten conciseness toward anchor 4-5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with structured bullets and phases, but includes unnecessary padding ('A precision skill for agents...', 'This skill helps you become a top-tier contributor', the 'Contributing to the Matrix' section, and emoji/branding footer) that could be trimmed, matching anchor 3 rather than the lean anchor 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

One concrete command is present (`gh issue list --repo owner/repo --label "help wanted" --limit 10`) but it uses placeholder args, and Phases 3-4 give descriptive criteria ('Is there a code snippet to reproduce the bug?') rather than executable steps, fitting anchor 3 (incomplete, missing key details) below the mostly-executable anchor 4.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1-4 provide a clear sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops; because this is a batch operation (scanning many repos and producing dossiers), the rubric's batch-operation rule caps workflow_clarity at 3, preventing a 4 even though the sequence is readable.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is organized into well-signaled sections (When to Use, Quick Start, Workflow Phases, Limitations) with no nested references, fitting anchor 4 (good structure, minor organization gaps); at ~65 lines it slightly exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold that would permit a 5.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 states a clear purpose and a reasonably distinct niche, but lacks an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause and relies on the 'OSS' abbreviation instead of natural user phrasings, capping completeness and trigger-term quality at the midpoint. Adding a concrete 'Use when ...' clause with synonyms like 'open source issues', 'help wanted', and 'good first issue' would raise both dimensions.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to find open source issues to work on, or mentions help wanted / good first issue tasks in trending repositories.'

Replace or expand 'OSS' with natural terms users actually say: 'open source contributions', 'contribute to open source', 'open source issues'.

List 2-3 concrete actions (e.g. discover trending repos, extract labeled issues, generate a contribution dossier) to move specificity toward anchor 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('OSS contribution opportunities') and one concrete action ('hunt for ... in trending repositories'), but offers only a single action and no comprehensive coverage of what the skill does, matching anchor 3 rather than the multi-action anchor 5.

3 / 5

Completeness

Provides a clear 'what' (hunt for high-impact OSS contribution opportunities) but has no 'when'/'Use when' trigger clause; per the rubric a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3, and it is not vague enough to drop to 2.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant keywords ('OSS contribution opportunities', 'trending repositories') but uses the abbreviation 'OSS' and omits natural phrasings users actually say ('open source issues', 'contribute', 'help wanted', 'good first issue'), so it sits at anchor 3 rather than the well-covered anchor 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche ('high-impact OSS contribution opportunities in trending repositories') is specific and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, fitting anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk) rather than the fully-distinct anchor 5 which requires explicit distinct triggers.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.