CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

automation-audit-ops

Evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing before fixing anything.

64

Quality

76%

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/automation-audit-ops/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is tdg-personal/automation-audit-ops

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 tight, well-structured audit workflow with concrete surfaces, classification categories, proof-path requirements, and a defined output format. Its only notable weakness is a mild duplication of the live-state categories across Guardrails and Workflow.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the live-state category list: state it once in Workflow step 2 and reference it from Guardrails to remove the repeated enumeration.

Add an explicit 'classify -> if ambiguous, gather more proof -> re-classify' micro-loop in step 2 to give the workflow a clearer feedback checkpoint.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of what MCP/GitHub Actions are), but the live-state category list (configured/authenticated/recently verified/stale or broken/missing) is stated twice — once in Guardrails and again in Workflow step 2 — a minor redundancy that keeps it just below the top anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only audit skill it gives concrete, specific guidance — exact surfaces to inventory, exact classification categories, exact proof sources (file path, workflow run, hook log), and a copy-ready output template — with only minor gaps versus fully executable code-style guidance.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The four numbered steps are clearly sequenced with a proof-path validation step and an explicit ambiguity checkpoint ('If the current state is ambiguous, say so directly'), plus a Verification section; no explicit fix->retry feedback loop, but the skill is read-only by guardrail so the destructive/batch cap does not bind.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is organized into clearly signaled sections (Skill Stack, When to Use, Guardrails, Workflow, Output Format, Pitfalls, Verification) with no nested references; no bundle files exist to reference, and the sibling-skill pointers are one level deep, so structure is good with only minor organization room left.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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 well-formed: third-person voice, explicit what-and-when triggers, and a clearly scoped niche. Its main limitation is that the action verbs (inventory, audit) are generic even though the enumerated targets and live-states are specific.

Suggestions

Trade one or two enumerated nouns for a concrete action verb (e.g., 'inventory, classify, and trace' instead of 'inventory and overlap audit') to lift specificity.

Add a couple of natural user phrasings or synonyms ('what's redundant', 'what can I cut') to round out trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('automation inventory and overlap audit workflow') with concrete targets (jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, wrappers) and states (live, broken, redundant, missing), but the action verbs themselves are generic ('inventory', 'audit') rather than a list of several specific actions, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC) and 'when' (Use when the user wants to know... before fixing anything) with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing' clause gives good natural-term coverage matching phrases users say ('what is live', 'what is broken', 'what overlaps'), with only minor synonym variations missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The ECC-scoped automation-inventory/overlap-audit niche is clearly distinct with specific triggers, but it references closely related sibling audit skills (workspace-surface-audit, etc.), creating minor overlap risk rather than zero conflict.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
affaan-m/ECC
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.