CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ruby-pro

Write idiomatic Ruby code with metaprogramming, Rails patterns, and performance optimization. Specializes in Ruby on Rails, gem development, and testing frameworks.

Quality

57%

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/skills/ruby-pro/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

32%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 lean, well-sectioned outline but almost entirely abstract: no code examples, no executable commands, generic boilerplate instructions, and a reference to a nonexistent playbook file that was apparently meant to carry the concrete examples. It needs real Ruby/Rails snippets inlined (or an actual playbook file created) and the generic filler removed.

Suggestions

Fix the dangling reference: either create resources/implementation-playbook.md with the promised detailed examples or remove the line "If detailed examples are required, open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`".

Add concrete, executable content — e.g., an idiomatic Ruby/Rails code snippet, a RuboCop invocation, an RSpec example, and a benchmark-ips usage — to replace the abstract lists.

Cut the boilerplate "Use this skill when / Do not use / Instructions" filler and generic Approach principles in favor of specific, sequenced guidance with validation steps (e.g., run RuboCop and the test suite, fix, and re-run).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and free of concept-explanation padding, but includes unnecessary boilerplate such as "Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs" and the circular "Working on ruby pro tasks or workflows" that add nothing Claude does not already know.

3 / 5

Actionability

No code, commands, or examples appear anywhere; concrete guidance is limited to naming tools ("Include Gemfile and .rubocop.yml when relevant", "benchmark-ips") without specific executable steps.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The numbered "Approach" list is a set of generic principles ("Embrace Ruby's expressiveness") rather than a task sequence, with no validation checkpoints or error-recovery loops.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and the body is under 50 lines, but it cites "resources/implementation-playbook.md" which does not exist in the bundle (no references/ or resources/ directory), a dangling reference that breaks navigation.

2 / 5

Total

9

/

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 names a clear Ruby/Rails niche with several specific capability areas and good natural keywords, but omits any "Use when..." trigger clause, leaving the "when" half of the contract missing and capping completeness. Adding an explicit trigger sentence with common synonyms (RSpec, Rails app, .rb) would lift it to the good-example tier.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when writing or refactoring Ruby or Rails code, building gems, or writing RSpec/Minitest tests."

Add common synonyms and file extensions users naturally mention (RSpec, Minitest, Rails app, .rb, Gemfile) to broaden trigger term coverage.

Phrase capabilities as concrete actions ("Refactor legacy Rails models", "Profile and benchmark Ruby code") rather than topic-area nouns to sharpen specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several specific capability areas ("metaprogramming, Rails patterns, and performance optimization", "gem development, and testing frameworks"), though they read as topic domains rather than concrete actions and coverage has minor gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

A clear "what" is present ("Write idiomatic Ruby code... Specializes in Ruby on Rails, gem development, and testing frameworks"), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains the dominant natural terms users would say ("Ruby", "Ruby on Rails", "gem development"), but misses common variations and synonyms such as RSpec, Minitest, "Rails app", or file extensions.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Ruby/Rails niche is mostly distinct from other skills with only minor overlap risk against generic programming skills; the absence of explicit trigger phrases slightly weakens distinct firing.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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

plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/ruby-pro/SKILL.md

Revision

64adc55

Reviewed

Table of Contents

DiscoveryImplementationValidation

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.

Claim skill