check-compiler-errors
Run compile and type-check commands and report failures
40
37%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./cursor-team-kit/skills/check-compiler-errors/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 but too terse—it conveys the basic action (compile, type-check, report failures) without specifying the technology stack, providing trigger guidance, or listing enough keywords for reliable skill selection. It lacks a 'Use when...' clause, which is a significant omission for disambiguation among potentially many development-related skills.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to build, compile, or check for type errors in their project.'
Include natural trigger terms and variations such as 'build', 'build errors', 'tsc', 'typescript', 'compilation', 'type errors', or specific toolchain names.
Specify the language or toolchain scope (e.g., TypeScript, Java) to improve distinctiveness and reduce conflict with other build/lint skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names specific actions ('compile', 'type-check', 'report failures') but doesn't elaborate on what languages, tools, or environments are supported, nor does it list multiple concrete sub-actions beyond the basic trio. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does (run compile/type-check and report failures) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and since the 'what' is also fairly thin, a score of 1 is appropriate. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'compile', 'type-check', and 'failures' which users might naturally use, but misses common variations like 'build', 'tsc', 'typescript', 'build errors', 'compilation errors', or specific tool names. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'compile' and 'type-check' narrows the domain somewhat, but it could overlap with general build tools, linting skills, or CI/CD skills without specifying the exact niche (e.g., language, framework). | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
42%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a high-level outline that describes what to do in abstract terms without providing any concrete, actionable guidance. It lacks specific commands, tool references, error-parsing strategies, or examples that would differentiate it from what Claude would already attempt. While it's concise and well-structured, it fails to add meaningful value.
Suggestions
Add concrete example commands for common ecosystems (e.g., `tsc --noEmit`, `cargo check`, `go build ./...`) so Claude knows what to actually run.
Include an example of parsing compiler output and summarizing errors, such as a sample error message and the expected grouped summary format.
Provide specific strategies for 'highest-confidence fixes' — e.g., fix import errors before type errors, resolve missing dependencies before logic issues.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is brief and doesn't over-explain concepts Claude knows, but it's also so sparse that it doesn't add much value beyond what Claude would already do. The trigger section is somewhat unnecessary filler. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete commands, code examples, or specific tools are mentioned. 'Run the repo's compile and type-check commands' is entirely vague — it doesn't specify any actual commands (e.g., `tsc --noEmit`, `cargo check`, `mvn compile`), patterns for parsing output, or strategies for fixing errors. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed in a logical sequence and include a re-run/validation loop (step 4), but the steps are too abstract to be genuinely useful. There are no explicit validation checkpoints or error recovery details beyond 'blocked.' | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple, short skill with no bundle files, the content is organized into clear sections (Trigger, Workflow, Output) and doesn't need external references. The structure is appropriate for its scope. | 3 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- cursor/plugins
- Commit
b8f2564
- 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.