CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

production-audit

Local-evidence production readiness audit for shipped apps, pre-launch reviews, post-merge checks, and "what breaks in prod?" questions without sending repo data to an external audit service. Use when auditing production readiness before launch, after a merge, or when asked what breaks in prod.

Quality

85%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%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, actionable audit playbook with concrete commands, a scoring rubric, output format, and worked example. Its weaknesses are minor: a trimmable provenance paragraph, implicit validation checkpoints, and no reference files for the detailed risk-lens checklists.

Suggestions

Remove or shorten the provenance paragraph about the 'maintainer-safe rewrite of the stale community production-audit idea' — it explains history, not execution, and spends tokens Claude cannot act on.

Make evidence validation explicit in the workflow (e.g., after step 4, re-verify any cap condition before producing the final score) to close the workflow-clarity gap.

Consider moving the detailed Risk Lenses checklists into a references/ file (e.g., risk-lenses.md) and keeping only a one-line summary per lens in SKILL.md.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is checklist-driven and mostly lean with concrete commands, but the provenance paragraph ('This is a maintainer-safe rewrite of the stale community production-audit idea...') explains the skill's history rather than how to execute it and could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully actionable for an instruction-only skill: copy-paste-ready git commands, an exact output template, a worked example response, explicit score-cap rules, and specific per-lens checklist items. No pseudocode or vague direction.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence in 'How It Works' with a defined evidence order and decision points via score caps, but validation checkpoints are implicit (e.g., no explicit verify-and-recheck loop after gathering evidence) rather than spelled out.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized single-file skill with clear section headers, no nested references, and content at the right altitude; however, at ~200 lines with no bundle files, some risk-lens detail could be split into reference files.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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: third-person voice, concrete capabilities, and an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger phrases. Its only gaps are a few missing trigger synonyms ('ready to ship', 'production-ready') and un-enumerated audit coverage in the description itself.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete action types ('production readiness audit', 'pre-launch reviews', 'post-merge checks') with a clear local-evidence constraint, but does not enumerate the audit's coverage areas within the description itself, so it falls short of comprehensive.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Local-evidence production readiness audit for shipped apps, pre-launch reviews, post-merge checks') and when ('Use when auditing production readiness before launch, after a merge, or when asked what breaks in prod') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases like 'what breaks in prod?', 'before launch', and 'after a merge', but misses common variants such as 'ready to ship?' or 'is this production-ready?' that users would plausibly say.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear production-readiness niche with mostly distinct triggers and an explicit contrast with external audit services; minor overlap risk remains with general code-review or security-review skills.

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

affaan-m/ECC

Path

skills/production-audit/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.