CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ccw-cli-tools

CLI tools execution specification (gemini/claude/codex/qwen/opencode) with unified prompt template, mode options, and auto-invoke triggers for code analysis and implementation tasks. Supports configurable CLI endpoints for analysis, write, and review modes.

38

Quality

37%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.codex/skills/ccw-cli-tools/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

42%

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

The skill provides highly actionable, concrete CLI guidance with executable examples and a well-defined prompt template system. However, it suffers from severe verbosity and redundancy—configuration loading is explained three times, field definitions appear twice, and the selection algorithm is presented in multiple formats. The content would benefit enormously from splitting into separate reference files and eliminating the extensive duplication.

Suggestions

Eliminate redundant sections: merge the three separate explanations of configuration loading (Initialization, Configuration Reference, Tool Selection STEP 0) into a single authoritative section, and remove the duplicate field definitions (table + bullet list).

Split into multiple files: move the prompt template field specifications, rule template catalog, and task-type examples into separate referenced files (e.g., PROMPT-TEMPLATE.md, RULES.md, EXAMPLES.md) to reduce the main file to an overview.

Add explicit validation checkpoints for write mode operations, such as verifying output file existence, running tests after implementation, or checking for compilation errors before delivering results.

Remove explanatory text that Claude already knows (e.g., what JSON parsing means, what 'enabled: boolean' means, what tags are) and trust Claude to interpret the configuration structure from a single concise example.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Extremely verbose at ~400+ lines with significant redundancy. The configuration loading instructions are repeated at least 3 times (Initialization, Configuration Reference, Tool Selection Strategy). Field specifications like 'enabled', 'primaryModel', 'secondaryModel', 'tags', 'type' are listed twice (table + bullet list). The selection decision tree is presented both as a flowchart and prose. Much of this content (JSON parsing, what tags are, how fallbacks work) could be assumed knowledge for Claude.

1 / 3

Actionability

Provides fully executable CLI commands with complete prompt templates, specific flag usage, and multiple concrete examples covering security analysis, feature implementation, bug diagnosis, and code review. The 6-field prompt template is well-specified with good/bad examples, and the command options table is comprehensive and copy-paste ready.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The process flow diagram provides a clear 7-step sequence, and the selection decision tree is well-structured. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints for error recovery beyond 'check secondaryModel or fallback tool.' For write mode operations (destructive changes), there's no validation step to verify output quality or correctness before delivering results. The fallback chain describes what to do on failure but lacks concrete error detection criteria.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

This is a monolithic wall of text with no references to external files despite being complex enough to warrant splitting. The rule templates section lists 15+ templates with no links to their definitions. Configuration structure, prompt template details, examples, and tool selection logic are all inline. No bundle files are provided, yet the content references 'cli-tools-usage.md' and 'CLAUDE.md' without linking to them. The same information (config loading, field definitions) is repeated in multiple sections rather than being organized with cross-references.

1 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

32%

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 overly technical and architecture-focused, reading more like an internal specification than a skill description meant to guide skill selection. It lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for Claude to know when to select this skill. The inclusion of specific CLI tool names is helpful for triggering, but the overall language is too jargon-heavy and insufficiently user-oriented.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to run code analysis, review, or implementation tasks using CLI tools like gemini, claude, codex, qwen, or opencode.'

Replace architectural jargon ('unified prompt template', 'configurable CLI endpoints', 'auto-invoke triggers') with concrete user-facing actions, e.g., 'Executes AI-powered CLI tools to analyze code, write implementations, and review changes.'

Include natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'run gemini on this code', 'use codex to review', 'analyze with claude CLI', or 'code review with AI tools'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (CLI tools execution) and lists some actions (code analysis, implementation tasks, analysis/write/review modes), but the description is heavy on architectural jargon ('unified prompt template', 'configurable CLI endpoints', 'auto-invoke triggers') rather than concrete user-facing actions.

2 / 3

Completeness

While it describes what the skill does (CLI tools execution with modes), there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. The mention of 'auto-invoke triggers' describes an internal mechanism rather than telling Claude when to select this skill. This caps completeness at a maximum of 2 per the rubric, and the 'what' itself is also somewhat unclear, warranting a 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant tool names (gemini, claude, codex, qwen, opencode) which are useful trigger terms, and mentions 'code analysis' and 'implementation tasks'. However, it lacks natural user phrases like 'run CLI', 'execute command', 'code review', or 'analyze code with' that users would actually say.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The specific CLI tool names (gemini, claude, codex, qwen, opencode) provide some distinctiveness, but the broad scope of 'code analysis and implementation tasks' could easily overlap with general coding skills, code review skills, or other CLI-related skills.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (560 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Repository
catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
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.