CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

speckit-updater

SpecKit Safe Update

34

Quality

31%

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/skills/speckit-updater/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

52%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 skill provides clear, actionable instructions for a two-step conversational update workflow with concrete commands and decision logic. However, it suffers from significant verbosity through triple-repetition of the core workflow and inlining of reference material (architecture, exit codes, features) that should be in separate files. The hardcoded user path vs. template path inconsistency is a minor but notable issue.

Suggestions

Move the Architecture section, Features list, and Exit Codes table into a separate REFERENCE.md file and link to it from the main skill

Eliminate the redundant workflow descriptions — the 'What to do when this skill is invoked' section and the 'When you invoke this command' block say the same thing; keep only one

Standardize the script path to use only `{skill_path}` template syntax and remove the hardcoded `C:\Users\bobby\` path

Add explicit guidance for Claude on how to handle non-zero exit codes from the script (e.g., what to tell the user for each exit code)

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is significantly verbose with extensive repetition. The workflow is described three times (in the main instructions, the Commands section's 'When you invoke this command' block, and the 'Conversational Workflow' summary). The Architecture section, Features list, and exit codes table add bulk that Claude doesn't need inline. Much of this could be trimmed or moved to reference files.

2 / 5

Actionability

The skill provides concrete, executable PowerShell commands with specific flags, clear marker strings to parse, and explicit decision logic for different scenarios. Minor gaps include hardcoded paths (C:\Users\bobby\) mixed with template paths ({skill_path}), which could cause confusion about which to actually use.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The two-step approval workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit markers and branching logic for updates vs. fresh installations. The 10-step process list includes validation and rollback. However, there's no explicit error-handling guidance for what Claude should do if the script fails mid-execution or returns non-zero exit codes, and the validation checkpoint after the -Proceed step is implicit rather than explicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The content is monolithic with no references to separate files for detailed content. The Architecture section, module descriptions, full exit code table, and feature list are all inlined when they could be in reference files. The README.md is mentioned but no other content is split out. For a skill this long (~150 lines), the lack of structure into separate reference documents is a significant issue.

2 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

11%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.

This description is essentially a title rather than a functional description. It provides no information about what the skill does, what actions it performs, or when Claude should select it. It fails on nearly every dimension of the rubric.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions describing what 'SpecKit Safe Update' actually does (e.g., 'Updates SpecKit configuration files while preserving existing customizations and creating backups').

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to update SpecKit, upgrade spec files, or safely modify configuration').

Include natural keywords and synonyms that users might say when they need this skill, such as specific file types, commands, or domain terminology related to SpecKit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description 'SpecKit Safe Update' contains no concrete actions whatsoever. It names something ('SpecKit') but provides no indication of what actions are performed—no verbs, no domain details, nothing actionable.

1 / 5

Completeness

There is no 'what does this do' explanation and no 'when should Claude use it' guidance. The description is essentially just a title with no functional information.

1 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'SpecKit' could be a relevant keyword if a user mentions it by name, and 'Safe Update' vaguely suggests an update operation. However, these are not natural phrases users would typically say, and there are no synonyms, variations, or contextual terms.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'SpecKit' provides some specificity as a proper noun, but 'Safe Update' is extremely generic and could overlap with any update-related skill. Without further context, it's unclear what domain this targets.

2 / 5

Total

6

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

description_field

'description' is very short (19 chars), consider making it more detailed

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

9

/

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.