CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

codehealth-mcp

Real-time structural Code Health via CodeScene MCP — review before edits, verify score deltas after changes, gate commits and PRs. Use when reviewing code quality, refactoring, checking if AI changes degraded a file, or before commit/PR.

70

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

88%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.

A well-structured, highly actionable skill body with concrete commands, copy-paste config, and an explicitly gated feedback loop including failure handling. Main improvement is token efficiency and splitting some inline material into reference files for better progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the AGENTS.md enforcement template and anti-patterns block into a separate reference file, linked from the body, to reduce inline length.

Trim the 'When to Activate' section since it explicitly duplicates 'When to Use', or merge them to recover tokens.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly lean — tables, concrete tool names, copy-paste config — with little explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but sections like the inlined AGENTS.md block and anti-patterns list could be trimmed, so it is efficient rather than maximally lean.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready MCP config JSON, a tool-to-when table with exact tool names, a score-interpretation table, and concrete worked examples with real scores (4.82 -> 9.1), fully covering common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The feedback loop is explicitly sequenced (before edits / after each change / before commit / before PR) with validation checkpoints ('If the score regressed, fix before continuing', 'never declare done if score dropped') and an error-recovery path when the MCP is unavailable, matching the score-5 anchor.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clearly organized and external references are well signaled, but all content lives inline in one ~160-line file with no split into bundle reference files, leaving minor organization gaps versus the ideally split score-5 structure.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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, concrete description that clearly states both capabilities and activation triggers in third person. It is highly actionable with minimal fluff, with only slight room to broaden trigger synonyms and tighten distinctiveness against sibling quality skills.

Suggestions

Add 'maintainability' as a trigger synonym since users may say 'check maintainability' rather than 'code quality'.

Tighten distinctiveness by noting the structural/design-level focus (e.g. 'structural, not style/lint') directly in the description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists three concrete actions ('review before edits, verify score deltas after changes, gate commits and PRs'), matching the score-4 anchor of several specific actions with minor gaps rather than the fully comprehensive score-5 list of four+ actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Real-time structural Code Health via CodeScene MCP — review before edits, verify score deltas after changes, gate commits and PRs') and when ('Use when reviewing code quality, refactoring...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the score-5 anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present ('reviewing code quality, refactoring, checking if AI changes degraded a file, or before commit/PR'), giving good keyword coverage, but it lacks synonyms or the 'maintainability' phrasing users might also say, so it falls short of comprehensive score-5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The CodeScene MCP / structural Code Health framing is a clear niche, but broad triggers like 'code quality' and 'refactoring' create minor overlap with related lint/quality skills, placing it at mostly distinct rather than minimal conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.