team-issue
Unified team skill for issue resolution. Uses team-worker agent architecture with role directories for domain logic. Coordinator orchestrates pipeline, workers are team-worker agents. Triggers on "team issue".
63
55%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.codex/skills/team-issue/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
25%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description focuses heavily on internal architecture (team-worker agents, coordinator, role directories) rather than describing what the skill actually does for the user. The trigger term 'team issue' is artificial and unlikely to match natural user requests. The description lacks concrete actions and natural keywords that would help Claude select this skill appropriately.
Suggestions
Replace architectural jargon with concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Triages, assigns, and resolves team issues by coordinating across domain-specific workers' instead of describing the internal agent architecture.
Add natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'bug report', 'incident', 'support ticket', 'resolve issue', 'team problem' — whatever the actual use cases are.
Expand the 'Use when...' clause with specific scenarios and user phrases that should activate this skill, rather than relying on the single artificial trigger phrase 'team issue'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language like 'issue resolution', 'domain logic', 'orchestrates pipeline' without listing any concrete actions the skill performs. It describes architecture rather than capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | It attempts to answer both 'what' (issue resolution using team-worker architecture) and 'when' (triggers on 'team issue'), but the 'what' is vague and the 'when' trigger is extremely narrow and unnatural. The trigger clause exists but is weak. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only explicit trigger is 'team issue', which is not a natural phrase users would say. Terms like 'team-worker agent architecture', 'role directories', and 'coordinator orchestrates pipeline' are internal jargon, not user-facing keywords. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Issue resolution' is quite generic and could overlap with many skills (bug fixing, customer support, etc.), but the specific mention of 'team-worker agent architecture' and the narrow trigger 'team issue' somewhat narrows the scope, reducing conflict risk slightly. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured orchestration skill that clearly defines the coordinator/worker architecture, provides actionable spawn templates, and enforces strict delegation boundaries. The workflow is well-sequenced with validation checkpoints and error recovery. Minor verbosity exists in duplicated spawn templates and some repeated coordination patterns, but overall the content is efficient and comprehensive for a complex multi-agent pipeline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly dense and information-rich, but includes some redundancy (e.g., the parallel spawn template is nearly identical to the regular spawn template, and some sections like the agent coordination pattern repeat concepts already covered). The ASCII architecture diagram and tables are efficient, but overall it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete spawn_agent templates with exact parameter structures, specific tool call allowlists/blocklists, exact file paths, session directory structures, and executable JavaScript-style patterns for batch spawning and wait/close cycles. The delegation lock table is immediately actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The pipeline is clearly sequenced (explore -> plan -> review -> marshal -> implement) with explicit validation checkpoints: the Delegation Lock acts as a pre-execution gate, the review-fix cycle has a max-2-round cap with forced convergence, agent health checks reconcile state, and error handling covers edge cases with specific resolutions. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The SKILL.md serves as a clear router/overview, with each role pointing to its own role.md file via one-level-deep references in the Role Registry table. Pipeline specs are linked to a separate specs/pipelines.md. The session directory structure provides a clear map without inlining the details of each output format. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
- Commit
0f8e801
- 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.