CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-graph

AST-based code graph for fast symbol lookup, dependency analysis, and blast radius via codebase-memory-mcp MCP server

51

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/code-graph/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%

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

The skill effectively establishes a 'graph first' mental model with a clear workflow and good tool categorization. However, it suffers from significant internal redundancy (the core guidance is repeated across the decision table, decision framework, and anti-patterns sections) and lacks concrete invocation examples showing actual tool parameters and responses, which limits actionability.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 concrete examples showing actual MCP tool invocations with parameters and sample responses (e.g., a search_graph call and what it returns), to move from score 2 to 3 on actionability.

Consolidate the 'When to Use Graph vs Direct Read' table, 'Decision Framework', and 'Anti-Patterns' sections into a single reference — they convey largely the same information three times.

Remove the ASCII art box that restates the core principle already explained in the preceding paragraphs, or replace it with a one-line summary.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is reasonably efficient but has notable redundancy: the ASCII art box restates the core principle already explained above it, the decision framework section largely duplicates the 'When to Use Graph vs Direct Read' table, and the anti-patterns table again repeats much of the same guidance. Several sections could be consolidated to save ~30-40% of tokens.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides clear tool names and a decision framework, but lacks concrete executable examples of actual MCP tool invocations (e.g., what does a search_graph call look like with parameters? what does the response look like?). The workflow steps are named but not demonstrated with real input/output examples.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 'Before Any Code Change' workflow is clearly sequenced (steps 0-6) with explicit validation checkpoints (step 3 blast radius, step 6 verify). The emphasis on 'never skip step 3' and the feedback loop of detect_changes before and after edits demonstrates strong workflow discipline with error prevention.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is well-structured with clear sections and tables, but it's a monolithic document with no references to external files for detailed content (e.g., tool parameter reference, examples, troubleshooting). Given the volume of information (~200 lines), some content like the full tool reference tables could be split out. No bundle files are provided to support progressive disclosure.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 technically specific and distinctive, clearly naming concrete capabilities (symbol lookup, dependency analysis, blast radius) and the specific tool (codebase-memory-mcp MCP server). However, it completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause, making it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill. The trigger terms are also quite technical and may not match how users naturally phrase their requests.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about finding symbol definitions, tracing dependencies between modules, understanding what code is affected by a change, or navigating the codebase structure.'

Include more natural user-facing trigger terms alongside the technical ones, such as 'find where a function is called', 'what files are affected', 'trace imports', 'code impact analysis', or 'find references'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'fast symbol lookup', 'dependency analysis', and 'blast radius'. These are distinct, well-defined capabilities rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Describes what it does (AST-based code graph for symbol lookup, dependency analysis, blast radius) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'when' is entirely absent, warranting a 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant technical keywords like 'symbol lookup', 'dependency analysis', 'blast radius', 'AST', and 'code graph', but these are fairly technical terms. Missing more natural user phrases like 'find where a function is used', 'what depends on this', 'impact analysis', or 'code navigation'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche: AST-based code graph analysis via a specific MCP server (codebase-memory-mcp). The combination of AST, symbol lookup, dependency analysis, and blast radius is unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
alinaqi/claude-bootstrap
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.