CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

agent-sort

並行リポジトリ対応のレビューパスを使用して、スキル、コマンド、ルール、フック、エクストラを DAILY と LIBRARY のバケットに分類することで、特定のリポジトリ向けのエビデンスに基づいた ECC インストール計画を構築します。プロジェクトが完全なバンドルをロードする代わりに実際に必要なものに ECC をトリミングする必要がある場合に使用します。

Quality

86%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 well-structured, largely actionable process skill: a 6-step sequenced workflow with explicit decision criteria, a concrete evidence-gathering command set, a worked evidence-table format, and a genuine verification step with a reporting checklist. It is held back from top marks by minor redundancy across sections, the absence of an explicit validate→fix→retry recovery loop in verification, and a couple of steps (router creation, verification checks) lacking concrete examples.

Suggestions

Add an explicit error-recovery loop to step 6 (結果を検証する): state what to do when a check fails, e.g. 'if stale language rules are still active, remove them and re-run the check' — this completes the validate→fix→retry cycle expected for batch install operations.

Make verification executable: give a concrete command or checklist example, such as comparing `ls .claude/skills/` output against the DAILY inventory, so the checks are copy-paste ready rather than implied.

Provide a short template (or a reference file) for the optional `skill-library` router SKILL.md so its creation is concrete instead of a bulleted description of what it should contain.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is procedural throughout — command blocks, classification criteria, an evidence-table format, an output template — with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. It fits the 4 anchor ('efficient; minor instances… that could be trimmed'): the 使用タイミング section duplicates the frontmatter description, and 分類モデル/非交渉ルール partly restate workflow steps 3–4. Not 5 because that redundancy exists; not 3 because the padding is minor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance is pervasive: the 'rg --files / rg -n "typescript|react|…" / cat package.json' command block, worked evidence-table rows ('skills/frontend-patterns | skill | DAILY | 84 .tsx files…'), the router path '.claude/skills/skill-library/SKILL.md', and the output format template. It matches the 4 anchor ('mostly executable… with minor gaps') rather than 5 because the verification step and the router creation lack concrete examples or commands.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The core workflow is a clearly ordered 6-step sequence with explicit promotion/demotion criteria and a real validation step (step 6: confirm DAILY files exist, stale rules inactive, no incompatible hooks, install matches stack, then report counts) — so the batch-operation cap at 3 does not apply since validation is present. It sits at the 4 anchor rather than 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop: what to do when a verification check fails is left implicit (only '未解決の質問' is reported).

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single, self-contained SKILL.md (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle) with well-organized sections, no buried references, and no nested lookups. All content is procedural and appropriately inline, matching the 4 anchor ('good structure; most content is appropriately placed'). Not 5 — the under-50-line simple-skill exception does not apply at ~215 lines, and the router SKILL.md spec and evidence-command list could arguably live in reference files; not 3 because nothing is disorganized or buried.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 is strong: it names the complete component inventory (skills, commands, rules, hooks, extras), the two classification buckets, the mechanism (parallel review passes), and the deliverable (evidence-based install plan), plus an explicit use-when clause with concrete triggers. It occupies a distinct niche with minimal conflict risk. The only weakness is limited synonym coverage in the trigger phrasing (e.g., no 'curate' or 'selective install').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes: "スキル、コマンド、ルール、フック、エクストラを DAILY と LIBRARY のバケットに分類", "エビデンスに基づいた ECC インストール計画を構築", "並行リポジトリ対応のレビューパス" — multiple concrete actions covering the complete component inventory and the end-to-end output. It fits the 5 anchor ('multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage') rather than 4 because no part of the skill's scope is left uncovered.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: the 'what' is "スキル、コマンド、ルール、フック、エクストラを DAILY と LIBRARY のバケットに分類することで…ECC インストール計画を構築" and the 'when' is "プロジェクトが完全なバンドルをロードする代わりに実際に必要なものに ECC をトリミングする必要がある場合に使用します". This matches the 5 anchor (explicit what AND when with concrete trigger phrases); the 4 anchor requires a 'when' that could be more specific, which is not the case here.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: "ECC をトリミング" (trim ECC), "完全なバンドルをロードする代わりに" (instead of loading the full bundle), "実際に必要なもの" (what it actually needs). Good natural trigger phrases users would say, but coverage is not comprehensive — synonyms like "curate", "selective install", or "subset" are missing — so it matches the 4 anchor rather than 5, and clearly sits above the 3 anchor's 'missing common variations'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: "ECC インストール計画", "DAILY と LIBRARY のバケット", "並行リポジトリ対応のレビューパス" — a clear niche (curating an ECC installation for a specific repo) with distinct triggers ('trim ECC', 'full bundle') that would not naturally fire unrelated skills. Minimal conflict risk matches the 5 anchor rather than the 4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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

affaan-m/ECC

Path

docs/ja-JP/skills/agent-sort/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.