CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

session-agent-builder

Turn the current interactive conversation into an owner-reviewed reusable Agentlas agent; accept JSON or JSONL only for explicit terminal and automation runs.

Quality

72%

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 ./codex/plugins/agentlas-core-engine-meta-agent/skills/session-agent-builder/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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-sequenced instruction skill with concrete defaults, an explicit owner-review checkpoint, and a strong safety section — it reads like operational policy rather than filler. Its main weaknesses are the dangling canonical-route references to files absent from the bundle and the lack of an explicit validate-fix-retry loop around the verify gates.

Suggestions

Fix the dangling references: either bundle `modes/session-agent-builder.md` and `agents/40-session-agent-builder/agent.md` under references/ or remove the deferral and keep the operative instructions inline in SKILL.md.

Add an explicit feedback loop after the verify gates, e.g. "If verification fails, fix the package and re-run the gate; only report success after it passes", so error recovery is not left implicit.

Tighten the redundancy between the intro's interactive-vs-terminal distinction and the 'Optional terminal route' section, and specify the report format (headings or schema) so step 3's output is unambiguous.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative, and free of explanations of concepts Claude already knows — e.g. "Produce a generalized session report... extract reusable intent, successful procedures, decisions, corrections, failed approaches" and "Replace project names, user identity, private paths... with general concepts or placeholders". A few spots could be tightened (the interactive-vs-terminal distinction is stated twice: in the intro and again in "Optional terminal route"), keeping it at anchor 4 (minor trimming possible) rather than anchor 5 (every token earns its place).

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: numbered steps with specifics ("the default is the global Agentlas agent home (`AGENTLAS_AGENT_HOME` or `~/.agentlas/agentlas-agent`)", "Support `Build Agent` and `Edit`"), explicit report components ("conditional `IF / THEN / BECAUSE / AVOID / INSTEAD` rules"), and a concrete command ("session preview|merge|ir|compile --input <session.jsonl>"). Minor gaps remain — the exact report format and how the verify gates are invoked are not specified — so it is mostly executable guidance (anchor 4), not fully copy-paste ready (anchor 5).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The interactive route is a clearly sequenced 5-step process with checkpoints: owner review before any write ("Show the report for owner review... editing regenerates the report before any package write") and downstream "local registration, and verify gates", plus a safety guard "never overwrite an existing child" for the destructive write operation. Checkpoints are present but error-recovery feedback loops (what to do when verification fails) are only implicit, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's explicit validate-fix-retry loop; the presence of verify gates keeps it above anchor 3.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized (Interactive route, Generalization and safety, Optional terminal route, Output) and the body is a reasonable length, but the opening defers to "`modes/session-agent-builder.md` and `agents/40-session-agent-builder/agent.md`" as "the canonical route" — files that do not exist in this skill's bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present), so the primary pointer is dangling and unverifiable. This lands at anchor 3 (structure present but reference navigation is broken) rather than anchor 4 (references mostly clear with only minor gaps); it avoids anchor 2 because the inline content is self-sufficient and clearly sectioned.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 communicates a distinctive, fairly specific capability with a crisp what, but it lacks an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause and natural trigger phrasings a user would actually say. Adding when-to-use guidance with concrete trigger phrases would lift both completeness and trigger term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to build, save, or reuse an agent from the current conversation/session, or supplies a session JSON/JSONL export for terminal processing."

Include natural user phrasings and synonyms such as "turn this chat into an agent", "save this session as an agent", and file extensions like .jsonl to improve trigger term coverage.

Mention the owner review/edit loop in the description so the interactive workflow's key capability surface is fully covered.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Turn the current interactive conversation into an owner-reviewed reusable Agentlas agent" and "accept JSON or JSONL only for explicit terminal and automation runs" name two concrete behaviors with specific input constraints, though coverage of the full capability surface (report generation, editing, packaging) is incomplete. This lists several specific actions with minor gaps (anchor 4) rather than only 1-2 actions (anchor 3) or comprehensive coverage (anchor 5).

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (turn the current conversation into an owner-reviewed reusable agent), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the interactive-vs-terminal distinction describes input handling, not when to invoke the skill. Per the judging guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3, and this does not reach anchor 4's "both what and when".

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like "interactive conversation", "session", "agent", "JSON or JSONL", and "terminal and automation runs" are present, but natural user phrasings such as "build an agent from this chat", "save this session", or "turn this conversation into an agent" are missing. Some relevant keywords exist but common variations/synonyms are absent (anchor 3), falling short of good coverage (anchor 4).

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and distinct — converting the current live session into an owner-reviewed Agentlas agent with a strict interactive-vs-terminal distinction — so conflict risk is low. There is minor overlap risk with other agent-creation or session-analysis skills (anchor 4) rather than the minimal-risk clear-niche of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

agentlas-ai/Agentlas-OS

Path

codex/plugins/agentlas-core-engine-meta-agent/skills/session-agent-builder/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.