CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

cs-issue-analyze

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

59

Quality

67%

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-issue-analyze/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, concise forwarder skill: it gives an unambiguous delegation sequence with an explicit failure checkpoint and clean section organization. It appropriately avoids duplicating the sibling skill's rules.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean with no concept explanations Claude already knows and no padding; every line states a concrete rule, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

Instructions are concrete and specific for an instruction-only forwarder: load the named skill 'cs-issue', continue with 'requested_stage: analyze', and an explicit fallback if loading fails — absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is actionable.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 执行规则 gives a clear sequence and includes an explicit failure checkpoint (step 4: stop and report if the main protocol cannot load), satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a 3.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, has no bundle files, and is organized into clear sections (执行规则, 维护规则); references it mentions belong to the sibling cs-issue skill, not broken local paths, so the well-organized-sections allowance applies.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

35%

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 clearly conveys that this is a deprecated compatibility shim forwarding to cs-issue, but it relies on technical identifiers rather than natural trigger terms and lacks an explicit 'Use when' clause. It is adequate for a deprecation notice but weak as proactive trigger guidance.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use only when handling legacy cs-issue-analyze invocations' so the 'when' is stated, not implied.

Replace or supplement the technical identifiers with natural phrasing a user might say (e.g., 'analyzing issues', 'issue triage') where appropriate, or state plainly that no new triggers apply.

Clarify the one concrete capability in user-facing terms (e.g., 'Delegates analyze-stage issue handling to the cs-issue skill') instead of bare command syntax.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names a concrete action ('转交 cs-issue --stage analyze') and its domain (compatibility entry for cs-issue-analyze), but lists only the single forwarding action rather than multiple specific capabilities, matching the 'names domain and some actions' anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill does (forwards to cs-issue --stage analyze) but the 'when' is only implied via the deprecated '旧 cs-issue-analyze 调用用' framing with no explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, capping completeness at 2 per the rubric guideline.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The only keywords are technical skill/stage identifiers ('cs-issue-analyze', 'cs-issue', 'requested_stage: analyze') — not natural terms a user would say — and the description actively discourages new requests, matching the 'no natural keywords; technical jargon' anchor.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It targets a specific named legacy entry, but because it forwards to cs-issue it inherently overlaps with that sibling skill's triggers, fitting 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

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.