CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ci-validation-gates

Defensive CI/CD patterns: semver validation, token checks, retry logic, draft detection — earned from v0.8.22

59

Quality

69%

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 ./.squad-templates/skills/ci-validation-gates/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 well-structured, actionable, and defensively sound — it provides executable validation gates and retry feedback loops for batch/destructive publish operations. Main improvement is reducing redundancy between the Patterns and Known Failure Modes sections and showing the draft-release API verification step as code.

Suggestions

Collapse the 'Known Failure Modes' table into a compact reference that points back to the Patterns rather than restating each prevention step, trimming the conciseness redundancy.

Provide an executable snippet for the draft-release API verification (e.g. a gh api check that the release is published) instead of describing it in prose, closing the actionability gap.

Add an explicit end-to-end publish workflow sequence (validate semver → publish → verify with retry) so the collection reads as one sequenced process with checkpoints.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean with executable snippets and targeted context ('npm registry uses eventual consistency'), but the 'Known Failure Modes' table partially re-lists prevention steps already stated in Patterns, a minor redundancy that keeps it just below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Two patterns ship copy-paste-ready bash/yaml (semver gate, retry loop) and the others give concrete steps (Automation token path, SKIP_BUILD_BUMP=1, trigger on release: published), with only minor gaps such as the draft-release API check being described rather than shown.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Explicit validation gates (semver check before publish) and a retry feedback loop (attempt → verify → exit on success / fail after max) are present, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply; it scores 4 rather than 5 because the skill is a pattern collection rather than one end-to-end sequenced workflow.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the content is self-contained with clear sections (Context, Patterns, Known Failure Modes, Anti-Patterns) and no nested references; at ~75 lines it slightly exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold that would otherwise warrant a 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

63%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 and distinct, naming four concrete defensive patterns, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and relies on technical jargon over natural user language. Adding a Use-when clause with natural triggers would lift the completeness and trigger-term dimensions.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when publishing to npm, cutting a release, or debugging a failed publish workflow'.

Add natural synonyms users actually say — 'npm publish', 'release', 'publishing a package', 'CI publish failure' — alongside the technical pattern names.

Drop or de-emphasize the provenance phrase 'earned from v0.8.22' from the description; it is meta-context that does not aid triggering.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists four concrete actions — 'semver validation, token checks, retry logic, draft detection' — giving comprehensive coverage of the defensive release-publishing niche, matching the anchor 5 example of multiple specific actions.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (defensive CI/CD patterns with enumerated checks), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant CI/CD keywords are present but lean technical ('semver validation', 'retry logic', 'draft detection') and miss natural user phrases like 'npm publish', 'release', or 'publishing'; no synonyms or variations are included.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (defensive npm release publishing) is distinct with low conflict risk, but without explicit trigger phrasing there is minor overlap risk with general CI/CD skills, landing just below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
bradygaster/squad
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.