CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cs-senior-engineer

Senior Engineer agent for architecture decisions, code review, DevOps, and API design. Orchestrates engineering and engineering-team skills for technical implementation work. Spawn when users need system design, code quality review, CI/CD pipeline setup, or infrastructure decisions.

61

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.gemini/skills/cs-senior-engineer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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.

A well-structured orchestration overview that is mostly lean and clearly sequenced, appropriately delegating detail to sub-skills. Its weakest point is actionability: several workflow steps are abstract directives with no concrete commands, templates, or output examples, and one referenced skill is missing from the integration list.

Suggestions

Add `tech-debt-tracker` to the Skill Integration section (or remove Workflow 5) so every referenced skill is documented.

Make abstract steps concrete: replace 'Document ADRs' with the ADR template fields to fill, and 'Score and prioritize debt items' with the scoring criteria.

Cut the 'Success Metrics' section or convert it into actionable review criteria (e.g., a checklist to hit during verification), since Claude cannot act on SLA targets.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly lean — one-line sub-skill descriptions and terse numbered workflows with no concept explanations — but the 'Success Metrics' section ('PR reviews completed within 4 hours', 'success rate >95%') is business-SLA framing Claude cannot act on and could be trimmed, fitting anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Routing to named sub-skills is concrete ('Review code quality via `code-reviewer` + `pr-review-expert`'), but many steps are abstract ('Gather requirements', 'Document ADRs', 'Score and prioritize debt items') with no commands, examples, or templates, and `tech-debt-tracker` is invoked without being listed — matching anchor 3's incomplete guidance.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced workflows with per-step sub-skill assignments, and Workflow 4 includes a feedback loop ('Verify all consumers pass', 'Escalate if 3+ fixes cascade'); other workflows lack explicit validation checkpoints, fitting anchor 4's 'most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections that appropriately delegate detail to sub-skills, but minor navigation gaps exist: `tech-debt-tracker` is used but never listed in Skill Integration, and the `engineering/skills/changelog-generator` path format is inconsistent with sibling references, fitting anchor 4.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

80%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.

A strong description with explicit what/when structure and concrete trigger phrases. Its main weakness is breadth: the senior-engineer umbrella spans many domains that overlap with the specialized sub-skills it references, creating routing ambiguity.

Suggestions

Narrow the trigger scope or add disambiguation (e.g., 'Spawn when users need cross-domain technical leadership spanning multiple engineering areas; defer single-domain requests to specialized skills') to reduce conflict with the orchestrated sub-skills.

Add security and testing to the description's capability list so it matches the body's actual coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several specific capability areas ('architecture decisions, code review, DevOps, and API design', 'system design, code quality review, CI/CD pipeline setup') with minor gaps — security and testing coverage from the body is absent, so it stops short of anchor 5's comprehensive coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (architecture decisions, code review, DevOps, API design; orchestrates engineering skills) and 'when' ('Spawn when users need system design, code quality review, CI/CD pipeline setup, or infrastructure decisions') with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say ('code review', 'system design', 'CI/CD pipeline setup', 'infrastructure decisions', 'DevOps') but misses common synonyms like 'refactor', 'deploy', or 'build pipeline', matching anchor 4 rather than 5's synonym-level coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-domain scope ('architecture, backend, DevOps, security, and API design') overlaps with the very sub-skills it orchestrates — a 'code review' request could as easily trigger pr-review-expert — so it fits anchor 3's 'could still overlap with similar skills' rather than anchor 4's minor overlap risk.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 suspicious

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Path

.gemini/skills/cs-senior-engineer/SKILL.md

Revision

19392f7

Reviewed

Table of Contents

DiscoveryImplementationValidation

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.

Claim skill