CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

change-impact

Perform evidence-backed impact analysis before changing code, data, interfaces, or governance documents, then compare the planned impact with the actual diff after implementation. Covers call paths, data and schema, API contracts, tests, documentation, ADRs, deployment, migration, and rollback. Use for cross-module or high-risk changes, database migrations, authentication, public interfaces, blast-radius questions, pre-change checks, and post-implementation alignment.

Quality

77%

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 ./.agents/skills/change-impact/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

60%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 well-structured with a clear pre-change/post-change workflow and sensible routing, but it is held back by redundant sections (two 'when' lists, two skill-routing lists) and reliance on an undefined artifact vocabulary that leaves the guidance short of fully executable. Instruction-only format itself is not penalized.

Suggestions

Merge 'When to Activate' and 'When to Use' into one section — they currently repeat the same triggers almost verbatim, and consolidate 'Related Skills' with 'Routing Rules' to remove the second overlap.

Define or reference the project artifact terms (MAP, STATUS, LOG, CONTEXT, ADR, CONTRACT, TESTS, TEST-IDs, REGRESSION, Spec/Issue) in a short glossary or reference file; they are used as load-bearing concepts but never defined.

Add one or two concrete evidence-gathering examples, e.g. the specific `git grep`/`git diff` invocations or call-graph commands used to prove callers, so the 'prefer evidence from real imports and calls' instruction becomes executable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

"When to Activate" and "When to Use" repeat the same triggers nearly verbatim, and "Related Skills" plus "Routing Rules" cover the same four skills twice; the rest of the prose is tight, so this is noticeable redundancy rather than severe padding.

3 / 5

Actionability

The ordered checklists ("Which entry points, direct callers, downstream consumers...") and routing rules with blockers are concrete, but the guidance hinges on undefined artifact jargon (MAP, STATUS, LOG, CONTEXT, TEST-IDs, Spec/Issue) with no bundle files or glossary, and only names `git grep`/`git diff` without executable examples.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence runs from "Before the Change" (1–6) through routing rules with an explicit blocker ("Treat any missing item as a blocker; do not execute rollback") to "Post-Implementation Alignment" (1–5), which acts as a scope-drift feedback loop; checkpoints are present but mostly implicit question lists rather than explicit validate-fix-retry steps.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the ~80-line body is appropriately self-contained with clear headers; minor organization gaps (the duplicated trigger sections and undefined artifact ecosystem) keep it below a 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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.

A strong description that explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete trigger phrases in third person. Minor gaps: a few missing natural trigger synonyms and slight overlap risk with adjacent code-review/security skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Two concrete actions are stated ("Perform evidence-backed impact analysis", "compare the planned impact with the actual diff") plus a broad coverage list ("call paths, data and schema, API contracts, tests, documentation, ADRs, deployment, migration, and rollback"), but 'perform impact analysis' is an umbrella abstraction rather than several parallel concrete actions, so it falls just short of the comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' ("Perform evidence-backed impact analysis... then compare the planned impact with the actual diff") and 'when' ("Use for cross-module or high-risk changes, database migrations...") are explicitly and concretely stated in third person.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use for' clause supplies natural phrases users would say — "cross-module or high-risk changes, database migrations, authentication, public interfaces, blast-radius questions, pre-change checks" — but common variations like 'what breaks if', 'affected callers', or 'who uses this' are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (pre-change impact analysis plus post-implementation diff alignment) is clear with distinct triggers like 'blast-radius questions' and 'pre-change checks', but terms like 'authentication' and 'cross-module changes' carry some overlap risk with code-review and regression skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

affaan-m/ECC

Path

.agents/skills/change-impact/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.