CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

cs-feat

实现新功能或功能改造。不用于纯 bug 修复(cs-issue)、行为等价重构(cs-refactor)、大需求拆解(cs-epic)。

56

Quality

64%

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/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 body is a well-structured, information-dense process skill with concrete templates, paths, validation gates, and feedback loops, plus appropriately signaled one-level-deep references to real bundle files. Its main limitation is dense prose that could be tightened and crisply sequenced.

Suggestions

Tighten the longest conditional sentences (e.g. the handoff and review-protocol paragraphs) into shorter bullets or numbered steps to improve token efficiency and sequence clarity.

Add one short end-to-end worked example showing the default-execution flow with a concrete report template filled in.

Consider promoting the densest safeguard-selection rules into a reference file to keep the SKILL.md body closer to a lean overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence and never pads with basic concepts Claude already knows; it is information-dense, though some long conditional sentences could be tightened, fitting 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than the lean anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and specific — exact paths (.codestable/...), report templates (经验命中:{path}({status});核验:{fact};影响:{plan_or_check}), the 晶化候选:{rule} template, numeric limits (max 3 questions, max 3 candidates), and work-doc prefixes — leaving only minor gaps from lacking a full end-to-end worked example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequenced workflow (开工 → 持续学习 → 默认执行 → 保障选择 → 硬门槛 → 审查协议 → 收尾) with explicit validation gates (verifiable evidence before completion) and feedback loops (fix findings → re-validate → re-freeze review target) is present; not 5 because the dense prose obscures crisp step sequencing.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Three one-level-deep references (references/code-design.md, economy.md, shared-language.md) are signaled with explicit trigger conditions and all exist as real files; structure is good, but the ~125-line body is dense for an overview, leaving minor organization gaps versus the clean anchor-5 example.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 specific and strongly distinguishes itself from sibling skills via explicit exclusions, but it lacks an explicit positive 'Use when...' trigger clause and offers limited action coverage, capping completeness and trigger quality at mid-level.

Suggestions

Add an explicit positive trigger clause such as 'Use when implementing a new feature or modifying existing feature behavior' to lift completeness above 3.

Include a few natural synonyms users say (e.g. 加功能/新增功能/改造功能) to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Optionally enumerate one or two more concrete feature-work actions to push specificity toward 4-5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and a concrete action ("实现新功能或功能改造") but offers only one or two actions and no comprehensive enumeration of feature-work capabilities, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor; not a 4 because it does not list several specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ("实现新功能或功能改造") but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the 'when' is only weakly implied via the exclusion list ("不用于..."), so per the missing-trigger-guidance cap it cannot exceed 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant natural keywords are present ("新功能", "功能改造") but common synonyms/variations a user might say (e.g. "加功能", "新增") are missing, fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche and explicitly disambiguates from sibling skills (cs-issue, cs-refactor, cs-epic), giving low conflict risk; not a 5 because it lacks positive concrete trigger phrases like the anchor-5 example.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

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.