CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ralphinho-rfc-pipeline

RFC-driven multi-agent DAG execution pattern with quality gates, merge queues, and work unit orchestration.

44

Quality

46%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/ralphinho-rfc-pipeline/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is admirably concise and well-structured into clear sections, but it is almost entirely abstract: it enumerates field names and stage labels without executable guidance, concrete templates, or validation checkpoints for its batch merge operations. Adding concrete examples and explicit validation steps would substantially improve actionability and workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Provide a concrete, filled-in Unit Spec example (e.g., a sample unit with real id, depends_on values, scope text, and acceptance_tests) instead of just listing field names.

Add explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops to the Quality Pipeline and Merge Queue sections (e.g., 'Run acceptance_tests; only queue for merge when all pass; if a dependency unit fails, evict dependents and re-validate').

Include at least one concrete command or actionable instruction (e.g., how to generate the dependency graph snapshot or how a merge-ready report should be structured) so the skill instructs rather than only describes.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and well-organized with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every section adds only skill-specific structure, matching the anchor for lean, efficient content.

3 / 3

Actionability

It lists field names (id, depends_on, scope) and stage names but provides no executable code, commands, or concrete filled-in templates; it describes rather than instructs, matching the vague/abstract anchor.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Pipeline stages and recovery steps are sequenced, but the skill involves batch merges with no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops; per the guidelines, missing validation for batch/destructive operations caps workflow_clarity at 2.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A short, single-purpose skill (under 50 lines) with clear, well-organized sections and no need for external references; per the simple-skills note, this warrants a 3 without bundle files.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

35%

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 concise and names a coherent niche, but it relies on technical jargon, omits explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, and lists abstract pattern categories rather than concrete actions. Adding natural trigger terms and an explicit usage clause would meaningfully raise the score.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user phrasing (e.g., 'Use when a feature is too large for one pass and needs to be split into independently verifiable units, or when planning RFC-driven work decomposition').

Replace jargon-only triggers with terms users actually say (e.g., 'large feature', 'split work into units', 'RFC', 'plan decomposition', 'merge queue') alongside the technical terms.

Reframe facets as concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Decomposes an RFC into a dependency graph of work units, runs each through a quality pipeline, and sequences merges via a merge queue').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names a domain (RFC-driven DAG execution) and several facets (quality gates, merge queues, work unit orchestration), but these are abstract pattern categories rather than concrete executable actions; not comprehensive enough for a 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

States what the skill is (RFC-driven DAG execution pattern) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, so the 'when' is only implied, which caps completeness at 2 per the guidelines.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'RFC-driven', 'multi-agent DAG', 'merge queues' are technical jargon a user would rarely say naturally; lacks common user-facing variations, matching the anchor for no natural keywords / overly technical.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (RFC pipelines, DAG, merge queues) is fairly specific and unlikely to broadly conflict, but it could still overlap with general planning/orchestration skills and lacks distinct explicit triggers.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

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.