CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

cs-feat-design

Deprecated 兼容入口:旧 cs-feat-design 调用用;转交 cs-feat --stage design。新请求不要主动选择。

64

Quality

75%

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 ./plugins/codestable/skills/cs-feat-design/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

100%

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

The body is a well-structured, lean compatibility shim that gives unambiguous redirect instructions including a failure-handling checkpoint and explicit maintenance boundaries. It appropriately avoids duplicating cs-feat's process rules and stays within token budget.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean (~25 lines) with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; each line — purpose statement, four execution steps, three maintenance bullets — earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

As an instruction-only redirect skill it gives concrete, specific guidance — load cs-feat by installed skill name, continue with requested_stage: design, do not re-prompt the user, and stop-and-report on load failure — with no missing key details, so code absence is not penalized.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The execution rules are a clear numbered sequence with an explicit checkpoint (step 4: stop and report if the main protocol cannot load); this is a simple non-destructive redirect, so the missing-validation cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

It is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and organized into clear sections (执行规则, 维护规则) with no need for its own external references; per the simple-skills note this earns a 3 on organization alone, and no bundle files exist to require deeper structure.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 concise and states its deprecation/handoff purpose clearly, but it relies on technical identifiers rather than natural trigger terms and lacks an explicit 'Use when' clause. It is adequate as a legacy compatibility label but would not guide new users to select it.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use only when handling legacy cs-feat-design invocations; for new work use cs-feat directly.'

Include natural-language phrasing users might say (e.g., 'feature design stage') alongside the technical identifier to improve trigger term quality.

Clarify the positive trigger condition first ('Compatibility entry for legacy cs-feat-design calls') before the deprecation caveat, so 'what' and 'when' are both unambiguous.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (兼容入口 for cs-feat-design) and one concrete action — "转交 cs-feat --stage design" — but lists only that single handoff action rather than multiple specific actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions' anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what (compatibility entry that hands off to cs-feat --stage design) and a when ("旧 cs-feat-design 调用用" / "新请求不要主动选择"), but lacks a clean 'Use when…' clause, so per the guideline completeness is capped at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes a relevant keyword ("cs-feat-design") that a legacy caller would invoke, but the terms are technical identifiers ("cs-feat --stage design", "requested_stage") with no natural-language variations, fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It is tied to a specific named entry (cs-feat-design) yet by design overlaps with and redirects to cs-feat, matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
codestable/CodeStable
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.