CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

clean

Intelligent code cleanup with mainline detection, stale artifact discovery, and safe execution. Supports targeted cleanup and confirmation.

33

Quality

28%

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/clean/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

39%

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

The skill demonstrates strong workflow design with clear phasing, validation checkpoints, and safety mechanisms (staged deletion, path whitelisting, dry-run mode). However, it suffers from significant verbosity—all implementation is inlined in one massive file with mixed-language comments, and the code uses undefined runtime APIs making it not truly executable. The content would benefit greatly from modularization and trimming explanatory text.

Suggestions

Split implementation phases into separate files (e.g., phase1-mainline.js, phase2-discovery.js) and reference them from the main SKILL.md overview to improve progressive disclosure.

Remove or consolidate redundant sections—the 'Iteration Flow' section largely restates the 'Execution Process' diagram and the phase descriptions.

Define or reference the runtime environment and pseudo-APIs (spawn_agent, wait_agent, bash(), Write(), Read(), request_user_input) so the code becomes actionable rather than illustrative pseudocode.

Remove Chinese-language comments and explanations, or commit to one language consistently; the mixed-language content adds cognitive overhead without adding value.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is extremely verbose at ~300+ lines with extensive inline code that could be modularized. It includes unnecessary explanations (e.g., explaining what project root detection does in Chinese), redundant sections (the iteration flow restates the execution process), and mixed languages (Chinese comments interspersed with English) adding noise. Much of the implementation detail could be in separate files.

1 / 3

Actionability

The code blocks are fairly detailed and provide concrete implementation, but they use pseudo-API functions (spawn_agent, wait_agent, followup_task, close_agent, Write, Read, functions.request_user_input) without defining them or referencing where they come from. The JavaScript is not directly executable as-is—it mixes bash() calls with JS in an undefined runtime environment, making it more like structured pseudocode than copy-paste ready code.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit phases (0-4), includes validation checkpoints (path validation, manifest schema validation), a staged deletion approach before permanent deletion, dry-run support, user confirmation gates, and error recovery cascades (4-step timeout handling). The feedback loops for destructive operations are well-defined.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

All implementation details are inlined in a single monolithic file with no references to supporting files or bundle structure. The entire ~300-line implementation could benefit enormously from splitting phases into separate files. No bundle files are provided, and the skill makes no attempt to organize content across files despite its complexity.

1 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

17%

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 uses abstract, jargon-heavy language that fails to communicate concrete actions or natural trigger terms. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause entirely, making it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill. The domain of 'code cleanup' is identifiable but insufficiently specified—it's unclear whether this handles dead code removal, unused file cleanup, branch management, or something else.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'clean up code', 'remove unused files', 'dead code', 'stale branches', or 'unused dependencies'.

Replace abstract terms like 'mainline detection' and 'stale artifact discovery' with concrete actions, e.g., 'Identifies and removes dead code, unused imports, stale build artifacts, and orphaned branches'.

Clarify the scope—specify what types of artifacts or code elements are cleaned up (files, branches, imports, dependencies, etc.) to reduce overlap with general refactoring or linting skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names some actions like 'mainline detection', 'stale artifact discovery', and 'safe execution', but these are somewhat abstract. 'Targeted cleanup and confirmation' adds some detail but the overall capabilities remain unclear—what exactly gets cleaned up? Code files, branches, build artifacts?

2 / 3

Completeness

Describes a vague 'what' but completely lacks a 'when' clause. There is no 'Use when...' or equivalent guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also weak, so this scores a 1.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Uses technical jargon like 'mainline detection', 'stale artifact discovery', and 'safe execution' that users would rarely say naturally. Missing common trigger terms users might use like 'clean up code', 'remove unused files', 'dead code', 'unused imports', or 'delete old branches'.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Code cleanup' is somewhat specific but could overlap with linting, refactoring, or general code quality skills. Terms like 'stale artifact discovery' and 'mainline detection' add some distinctiveness but are too vague to clearly carve out a niche.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

10

/

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.