CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

simplify-code

Review a diff for clarity and safe simplifications, then optionally apply low-risk fixes.

53

Quality

60%

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/simplify-code/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-structured workflow skill with clear sequencing, good mode selection logic, and appropriate validation checkpoints. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity in the sub-agent review checklists (which could be more concise or split into reference files) and the lack of executable code examples despite being a code-oriented skill. The workflow design is strong with proper conditional branching and explicit handling of edge cases.

Suggestions

Tighten the sub-agent review checklists by removing items Claude would naturally check (e.g., 'dead code' and 'redundant comments' are standard review concerns) to improve conciseness.

Consider extracting the four detailed sub-agent role descriptions into a separate reference file (e.g., REVIEW_ROLES.md) to improve progressive disclosure and keep the main skill leaner.

Add a concrete example of the normalized finding output format (e.g., a sample JSON or markdown table) to make the aggregation step more actionable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some unnecessary verbosity. The sub-agent role recommendations ('Recommended sub-agent role: explorer or reviewer') add marginal value, and some checklist items could be tightened. The enumerated lists in sub-agent sections are useful but slightly over-explained for Claude's competence level.

3 / 5

Actionability

The skill provides concrete, specific guidance: exact git diff commands for different scenarios, a clear normalized finding schema (file, line, category, confidence), specific fix types to prefer, and concrete validation examples. However, it lacks executable code snippets or exact command templates, relying on descriptive instructions instead.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit decision points (mode selection, scope determination), parallel sub-agent coordination, aggregation with filtering criteria, conditional fix application, and a validation step with explicit feedback. The fix-and-validate mode includes proper validation checkpoints, and the skill explicitly handles edge cases like skipped validation.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The content is entirely self-contained in a single file with no bundle files. The sub-agent review sections are quite detailed and could benefit from being split into separate reference files. The skill is around 120+ lines with substantial inline detail that could be organized into supporting documents for each review role.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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 communicates a basic understanding of what the skill does—reviewing diffs and optionally applying fixes—but lacks specificity about the types of simplifications, missing a 'Use when...' clause, and omits natural trigger terms users would employ. It is functional but would benefit from more concrete actions, explicit trigger guidance, and broader keyword coverage to help Claude reliably select it.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'review my diff', 'code review', 'simplify changes', 'clean up PR', 'pull request'.

Specify concrete actions more precisely, e.g., 'Identifies redundant code, unnecessary complexity, naming issues, and dead code in diffs, then optionally applies safe automated fixes'.

Include synonyms and related terms such as 'code review', 'pull request', 'PR', 'patch', 'staged changes' to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (diff review) and mentions two concrete actions ('review for clarity and safe simplifications', 'apply low-risk fixes'), but lacks detail on what specific kinds of simplifications or fixes are performed.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (review a diff for clarity and simplifications, optionally apply fixes) but completely lacks a 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance, which caps this dimension at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes 'diff' as a relevant keyword, but misses natural user phrases like 'code review', 'pull request', 'PR', 'refactor', 'clean up', or 'changes'. Users might not naturally say 'safe simplifications' or 'low-risk fixes'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of 'diff review' and 'safe simplifications' provides some distinctiveness, but could overlap with general code review skills, linting skills, or refactoring skills. The scope is not clearly bounded.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

10

/

11

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.