Name: analyze-issue
Rating: 65.60000000000001 (1 reviews)
Author: apache

analyze-issue

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

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

85%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 highly actionable, well-sequenced analysis workflow with strong progressive disclosure and validation checkpoints; its main weakness is redundancy across overlapping sections that inflates token cost without adding capability.

Suggestions

Merge 'Minimum Evidence Package' and 'Missing Information Handling' into one section; they list the same version/SQL/config/log items twice.

Consolidate 'Type and Label Recommendation' with the per-type label guidance in 'Response Strategy by Type' to avoid stating label rules twice.

Fold 'Lightweight Lint Recommendation' into 'Community Voice Guardrails' / the final self-check, since the lint items duplicate the guardrail list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The content is domain-specific with no concept padding, but it repeats itself across sections (Minimum Evidence Package ≈ Missing Information Handling; Type and Label Recommendation restated in Response Strategy by Type; Lightweight Lint restates Community Voice Guardrails) and could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and copy-ready: canonical URL pattern, exact labels (`type: bug`, `in: SQL parse`, `db: SQLServer`), severity S0-S3, `OBS-/INF-<n>` evidence IDs, `git log -S`, `GH_TOKEN`/`GITHUB_TOKEN`, and a 7-14 day follow-up window.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Numbered sequences (Intake, Analysis Method, Duplicate / Prior Fix Check) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops ('rerun checks before returning the corrected result'; 'if lint fails, mark analysis as incomplete'; Low confidence -> missing-info flow) plus a final self-check checklist.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Detail (templates, Reference Analysis schemas, Markdown fence rules) is offloaded to a one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference (references/output-contract.md, verified to exist) with an explicit read-trigger, and the main body is well sectioned.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 is specific, domain-distinctive, and uses fairly natural trigger terms, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness. Adding a concrete usage-trigger sentence would raise the weakest dimension.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when analyzing or replying to Apache ShardingSphere GitHub issues, triaging a community issue, or drafting a maintainer reply.'

Add natural synonyms users actually say ('triage', 'classify', 'maintainer comment') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Add file-signal terms like 'GitHub issue URL' or 'issue thread' so URL-only requests surface this skill.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the ShardingSphere domain and several concrete actions ('analyze Apache ShardingSphere community issues', 'evidence-first classification', 'produces copy-ready GitHub issue replies'), stopping short of the exhaustive multi-action list of a 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 3 even though the 'what' is strong.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural keywords ('analyze ... community issues', 'GitHub issue replies', 'classify') that a user would plausibly say, with a few common synonyms (e.g. 'triage', 'maintainer comment') missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description carves a clear, narrow niche (Apache ShardingSphere community issues, maintainer-voice replies) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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: apache/shardingsphere
Path: .codex/skills/analyze-issue/SKILL.md
Commit: 7bcfc14

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.