Name: lcx-report-bug
Rating: 68.8 (1 reviews)
Author: code-yeongyu

lcx-report-bug

Create a high-signal bug issue or PR in the repo that owns the defect. Use this whenever the user asks to report, file, open, or triage a LazyCodex, lazycodex-ai, omo-codex, Codex plugin, or upstream Codex CLI bug, especially when they need source-backed root cause, reproduction steps, fix guidance, and GitHub routing.

Quality

84%

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

Quality

Content

77%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 content is highly actionable with a well-sequenced, validated workflow and concrete executable commands. Its weaknesses are repetition that hurts conciseness and a lack of progressive disclosure — large templates and scripts are inlined in one file rather than split into referenced bundle files.

Suggestions

Move the Issue Body Template and PR Body Template into separate reference files (e.g. references/issue-template.md, references/pr-template.md) and link to them, reducing SKILL.md length and improving progressive_disclosure.

Extract the source-sync bash block into a script (e.g. scripts/sync_sources.sh) and invoke it from the workflow, removing a large inlined block from the body.

De-duplicate the 'never PR against code-yeongyu/lazycodex' rule by stating it once in the routing section and referencing it elsewhere, to tighten conciseness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence, but it is long and repeats routing rules across the Goal, Required Workflow, Stop Conditions, and template sections (e.g., the no-PR-against-lazycodex rule is stated at least four times), which could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready bash for source sync, issue search, label creation, issue/PR/comment creation, plus complete issue and PR body templates and browser/computer-use fallbacks covering the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	An explicit 11-step Required Workflow sequences investigation, evidence gathering, routing, duplicate search, label setup, and artifact creation, with validation checkpoints (corrupt-checkout recovery, valid-source checks, stop conditions, and explicit 'do not file' guardrails) and feedback loops for error recovery.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a single monolithic SKILL.md with no references/ scripts/ or assets/ bundle; large reusable blocks (the two full body templates and the source-sync script) are inlined rather than split into one-level-deep reference files, so structure is present but content that should be separate is inline.	3 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

91%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 strong: it explicitly states both capability and trigger conditions with rich natural-language phrasing and a clearly scoped niche. Minor tightening of the action list would push specificity from good to comprehensive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists concrete actions (create a bug issue or PR, root-cause analysis, reproduction steps, fix guidance, GitHub routing) but each is described at a high level rather than as multiple distinct specific operations, leaving minor coverage gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (create a high-signal bug issue or PR with root cause, repro, fix guidance, and routing) and when ('Use this whenever the user asks to report, file, open, or triage...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Comprehensive coverage of natural user phrasings including synonyms and product names — 'report, file, open, or triage', 'LazyCodex, lazycodex-ai, omo-codex, Codex plugin, or upstream Codex CLI bug'.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is clear and product-specific (LazyCodex/Codex bug routing) with distinct triggers, but the broad mention of multiple product surfaces creates minor overlap risk with general debugging or issue-filing skills.	4 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: code-yeongyu/lazycodex
Path: plugins/omo/components/lcx/skills/lcx-report-bug/SKILL.md
Commit: 10f9558

Reviewed: 10 days 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.