CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

verification-loop

A comprehensive verification system for Claude Code sessions. Use when verifying a Claude Code session's work before claiming it is complete.

58

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 ./.agents/skills/verification-loop/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 content is an efficient, actionable, well-sequenced verification playbook with real commands and clear phase gates. Its main weaknesses are implicit (rather than explicit) stop checkpoints in later phases and a slightly long single-file layout.

Suggestions

Add explicit stop/checkpoint directives after every phase (e.g. "If lint fails, STOP and fix"), not just phases 1-2.

Make the coverage threshold enforceable with a concrete command rather than a comment (e.g. "--coverageThreshold='80'").

Consider moving the report template and continuous-mode sections into a separate reference file to keep the main body shorter.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and command-driven with little explanation of concepts Claude already knows; only minor padding ("This skill complements PostToolUse hooks", "Report all type errors") could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Each phase gives concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready commands (npm run build, npx tsc --noEmit, grep -rn "sk-"), with minor gaps like unenforced "# OR" alternatives and a non-binding "Target: 80% minimum".

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six phases are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints ("STOP and fix before continuing", "Fix critical ones before continuing") and an overall READY/NOT READY gate, though later phases rely on implicit report-then-decide rather than explicit stop gates.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed; the single-file body is well-organized into clear header sections, though at ~120 lines some content (the report template, continuous mode) could be tightened.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

57%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 provides an explicit use-trigger and a distinct niche, but its "what" is abstract and lacks concrete capability actions. Tightening the action list and adding trigger synonyms would lift specificity and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Replace the generic "comprehensive verification system" with concrete actions, e.g. "Runs build, type-check, lint, tests, and security scans before declaring work complete."

Add trigger synonyms users would naturally say, such as "quality gates", "check before PR", or "is my change ready".

Keep the explicit "Use when..." clause but make the "when" conditions more specific (e.g. before a PR, after a refactor).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("comprehensive verification system") but lists no concrete actions, using only generic terms like "verifying a session's work" rather than naming build/lint/test checks.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both a "what" (verification system) and an explicit "when" (verifying before claiming completion) are present, though the "what" is vague and the trigger could be more specific.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes one natural trigger phrase ("Use when verifying... before claiming it is complete") but misses common variations users would say, such as "quality gates", "check before PR", or "is the work done".

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The phrase "Claude Code session's work before claiming it is complete" carves a fairly distinct niche tied to session-completion verification, with only minor overlap risk against general QA/testing skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

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.