CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

safety-guard

Use this skill to prevent destructive operations when working on production systems or running agents autonomously.

57

Quality

66%

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/safety-guard/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 lean, well-structured overview with executable command examples for all three modes. Its weak point is workflow clarity: for a skill governing destructive operations, it lacks explicit validation checkpoints and a fix-and-retry feedback loop.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation/verification step and a fix-and-retry feedback loop (e.g. when a command is blocked, how the agent recovers and re-attempts), to lift workflow clarity above the destructive-operation cap of 3.

Make the Implementation section concrete — show the PreToolUse hook configuration or a minimal rule-matching snippet instead of describing it abstractly.

Consider moving the long watched-patterns list into a references file and summarizing categories inline, to improve progressive disclosure and token efficiency.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficient and mostly lean — pattern lists and command examples earn their tokens — with only minor over-explanation such as "Useful when you want an agent to focus on one area without touching unrelated code", so it is just above the midpoint rather than a 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides copy-paste-ready commands for each mode (e.g. "/safety-guard freeze src/components/" and "/safety-guard guard --dir src/api/ --allow-read-all"), but the Implementation section stays abstract ("Checks the command/path against the active rules"), leaving a small gap.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Modes and a confirmation checkpoint are described, but this is a destructive-operation skill without explicit validation/verification or a fix-and-retry feedback loop, so workflow clarity is capped at 3 per the destructive-operations rule.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (When to Use, How It Works, Implementation, Integration) with no bundle files to navigate; it falls just short of 5 because the pattern list and integration notes are inlined rather than split into reference files.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

65%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 a clean, third-person trigger statement that answers both what and when with natural keywords. Its main weakness is specificity: it states the goal ('prevent destructive operations') without naming the concrete actions or mechanism that deliver it.

Suggestions

Add one or two concrete actions to raise specificity, e.g. 'Intercepts destructive commands and blocks out-of-scope edits to prevent destructive operations on production systems or when running agents autonomously.'

Broaden trigger terms with synonyms users actually say, such as 'guardrails', 'protect production', or 'restrict edits to a directory'.

Make the 'when' clause more specific by listing sensitive contexts like migrations, deploys, or data changes.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase "prevent destructive operations" names the domain but the action is generic and minimal — the description never states the mechanism (intercept, warn, block), so it stays at the 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' anchor rather than 3.

2 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("prevent destructive operations") and when ("when working on production systems or running agents autonomously"), but the when could be more specific (no mention of migrations, deploys, data changes), so it sits just below a 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases like "destructive operations", "production systems", and "running agents autonomously" give good keyword coverage a user would plausibly say, though common synonyms (e.g. 'guardrails', 'protect') are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The safety-guard niche is clear and the production/autonomous-agent triggers are distinct, with only minor overlap risk against generic linting or permission skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.