CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

probe-merged-change

Run an exploratory quality pass over a change that has ALREADY merged in constructorfabric/insight — research the diff, smoke it on a stand carrying that exact build, then execute a test plan across the five quality vectors (Efficiency, Reliability, Performance, Security, Versatility) and hand each surviving finding to file-bug-insight. Use for "test what just merged", "exploratory pass on #N", "check this change across the quality vectors", "we shipped X, go break it", or a QA sweep of a release candidate's new feature. NOT for planning tests before implementation (scope-feature-tests), NOT for writing the Testing section into an issue body (quality-vector-tests), NOT for validating a whole stand (insight-stand-validate), and NOT for confirming a known defect is fixed (verify-fix).

72

Quality

90%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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.

A well-structured, highly actionable methodology skill with an explicit sequenced workflow and a genuine validation feedback loop. It is slightly verbose in its illustrative anecdotes and delegates literal commands to sibling skills rather than inlining them.

Suggestions

Tighten or relocate the war-story anecdotes (the 100,000-character message, the 65 unreachable rows) into a short references file so the core probing rules stay lean in SKILL.md.

Inline at least one concrete example of the three smoke commands (migration apply, round-trip read-back, gated read) rather than only naming them, so the guidance is copy-paste ready instead of delegating entirely to sibling skills.

Consider extracting the per-vector probe checklist into a references/ file and linking it one level deep, which would let progressive_disclosure reach the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense methodology that assumes Claude's competence and never explains basics, but the anecdotal war-stories (e.g. the 100,000-character message / '65 rows unreachable' example) add tokens that could be trimmed without losing the teaching point.

4 / 5

Actionability

Gives concrete, specific guidance — the three smoke checks, pinning images to the build tag, capturing one real request body and comparing keys against OpenAPI and stored columns — but the literal commands are delegated to sibling skills (playwright-cli, drive-ui, file-bug-insight) rather than given inline, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

An explicit numbered Order (Research, Smoke, Plan, Execute, File) plus a validation feedback loop in 'Smoke before you plan' — 'If any of those fails, stop... Re-run the failed check on a stand you have confirmed healthy' — with classification before filing, satisfying the top anchor including for batch/destructive operations.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections and appropriately points outward ('Take vector semantics from quality-vector-tests/references/vector-mapping.md rather than re-deriving them') instead of duplicating; no bundle files exist and none are needed, though some dense anecdotal material is inlined that could live in a reference.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

A strong, concrete description that names specific actions, supplies natural trigger phrases, and explicitly bounds itself against four sibling skills. It is somewhat long, but every clause does work and none is generic fluff.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'research the diff', 'smoke it on a stand carrying that exact build', 'execute a test plan across the five quality vectors', 'hand each surviving finding to file-bug-insight' — giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill does.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (research, smoke, test across five vectors, file findings) and 'when' via a concrete 'Use for ...' clause, satisfying the top anchor for completeness.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Provides five natural trigger phrases a QA user would actually say — 'test what just merged', 'exploratory pass on #N', 'check this change across the quality vectors', 'we shipped X, go break it', 'QA sweep of a release candidate's new feature' — with synonym-level variation.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'NOT for ...' clauses explicitly carve the niche away from scope-feature-tests, quality-vector-tests, insight-stand-validate, and verify-fix, giving minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
constructorfabric/insight
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.