CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

analyze-issue

Used to analyze Apache ShardingSphere community issues. Emphasizes root-cause-first and evidence-first classification before conclusions, and by default produces copy-ready GitHub issue replies in the voice of an Apache ShardingSphere community maintainer followed by reference analysis for traceability.

61

Quality

72%

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 ./.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is highly actionable and workflow-clear, with concrete commands, templates, taxonomies, and well-sequenced validation gates. Its weaknesses are verbosity from repeated self-check/evidence lists and a lack of progressive disclosure — everything lives in one very long file with no reference files for the large template structures.

Suggestions

Consolidate the three overlapping self-check lists (Community Voice Guardrails, Reference Analysis Markdown Requirements, Lightweight Lint Recommendation) into a single canonical self-check section to reduce repetition.

Move the large Reference Analysis Output Structure skeletons and label/severity taxonomy into a separate reference file (e.g. references/output-structure.md) and link to it, improving progressive disclosure for a 500+ line skill.

De-duplicate the evidence checklist that appears in both Minimum Evidence Package and Missing Information Handling into one shared list.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is ~547 lines with notable repetition (three overlapping self-check lists in Community Voice Guardrails, Reference Analysis Markdown Requirements, and Lightweight Lint; the evidence list duplicated between Minimum Evidence Package and Missing Information Handling), so it could be tightened substantially, though it avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows and stays domain-specific.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance: exact curl commands with URLs, a concrete label taxonomy (e.g. 'type: bug', 'in: SQL parse'), copy-ready maintainer-reply templates per issue type, and explicit evidence ID schemes (OBS-<n>, INF-<n>) and severity scales (S0-S3), matching the copy-paste-ready anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes (Fast Triage Gate, Analysis Method, Duplicate / Prior Fix Check, Intake Workflow) are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (Reasonability Gate, Conflict Resolution Rule) and self-check checklists with feedback loops, matching the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the entire skill is a single monolithic ~547-line SKILL.md with large inline template/skeleton sections that could be split into reference files; headings give reasonable structure, but content that should be separate is inline, matching the could-be-better-organized anchor rather than a 3.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 specific and well-scoped to a distinct ShardingSphere niche, clearly conveying what the skill does. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and limited variation in natural trigger terms, which cap completeness and trigger-term quality at 2.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause listing natural trigger phrasings, e.g. 'Use when replying to a ShardingSphere GitHub issue, triaging an issue, classifying a community question, or drafting an issue comment.'

Broaden trigger term coverage with common user phrasings like 'triage', 'issue comment', and 'reply to issue' alongside 'GitHub issue replies'.

Keep the third-person voice ('Used to analyze...') which is already correct; avoid introducing first/second person.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions such as 'analyze Apache ShardingSphere community issues', 'root-cause-first and evidence-first classification', and 'produces copy-ready GitHub issue replies', matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor rather than the partial score-2 anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (analyze, classify, produce replies and reference analysis), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 2 with 'when' only implied.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain keywords like 'Apache ShardingSphere community issues' and 'GitHub issue replies' are present, but coverage of natural phrasings a user would say is narrow with few synonyms (no 'triage', 'issue comment', 'reply to issue'), matching the some-keywords-but-missing-variations anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The narrow 'Apache ShardingSphere community issues' niche with project-specific triggers makes it clearly distinguishable and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the clear-niche anchor.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (557 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
apache/shardingsphere
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.