check-compiler-errors

Run compile and type-check commands and report failures

Quality

61%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./cursor-team-kit/skills/check-compiler-errors/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%

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

The body is appropriately concise and well-structured for a simple single-purpose skill, with a clear sequence and a re-run feedback loop. Its main weakness is actionability: it tells Claude what to do but not how, with no executable commands, tool examples, or output format.

Suggestions

Add concrete guidance for discovering the repo's build/type-check commands (e.g., read package.json scripts, Makefile targets, or CI config) and show an example invocation.

Specify the expected error-summary format with a short example output so the "Summarize errors by file and type" step is unambiguous.

Make the feedback loop explicit: define what "blocked" means and instruct Claude to report remaining blockers with the failing command output when it cannot proceed.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows ("Compile or type-check failures are blocking local validation or CI" followed by a terse numbered workflow), matching the level-3 anchor "Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place".	3 / 3
Actionability	Steps like "Run the repo's compile and type-check commands" and "Summarize errors by file and type" give direction but no executable commands, tool names, or example output format, fitting the level-2 anchor "Some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details" rather than copy-paste-ready level 3.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The four steps are clearly sequenced and include a re-run loop ("Re-run checks until clean or blocked"), but the validation checkpoint and error-recovery handling are implicit (no explicit handling of what "blocked" means or how to surface remaining blockers), matching the level-2 anchor "sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit".	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is organized into clearly labeled Trigger/Workflow/Output sections, so per the rubric's simple-skills guidance it qualifies for the level-3 anchor "well-organized sections" without separate files.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 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 names a concrete domain, but it omits any explicit use-when trigger guidance and lacks the term coverage and action specificity needed for the top level. It is functional but generic enough to risk overlap with related build/CI skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when compile or type-check errors are blocking local validation or CI, or when the user mentions build/type errors."

Broaden natural trigger terms to include common variations like "build errors", "type errors", "lint failures", and "CI failures".

Make the actions more concrete (e.g., mention running the project's configured build/type-check tool and grouping failures by file) to lift specificity toward level 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase "Run compile and type-check commands and report failures" names the domain (compile/type-check) and a couple of actions, but stops short of listing multiple specific concrete actions (no named tools or output formats), matching the level-2 anchor "Names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive".	2 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill does ("Run compile and type-check commands and report failures") but provides no explicit "Use when..." trigger guidance, so per the rubric a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 2 ("Has what, but when is missing or only implied").	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"compile and type-check" are natural terms a user would say, but common variations are missing (e.g., build errors, lint, type errors, CI failures), fitting the level-2 anchor "Some relevant keywords but missing common variations" rather than the broad coverage of level 3.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The compile/type-check niche is somewhat specific, but it could still overlap with general build, lint, or CI skills, matching the level-2 anchor "Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills" rather than a clearly distinct niche.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: cursor/plugins
Path: cursor-team-kit/skills/check-compiler-errors/SKILL.md
Commit: fe77e77

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.