CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review

Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review.

62

Quality

73%

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 ./cursor-team-kit/skills/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

58%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, ambitious instruction-style skill with strong sectioning and concrete review phrasing, weakened by significant cross-section repetition and the absence of an explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Consolidate the overlapping themes across 'Non-Negotiable Standards', 'What to Flag Aggressively', and 'Preferred Remedies' — each code-judo/spaghetti/abstraction point is currently restated three times, inflating the body without adding information.

Add a brief sequenced review workflow with checkpoints (e.g., 1. inspect diff scope, 2. identify structural regressions, 3. propose code-judo reframings, 4. apply the approval bar) so the process is explicit rather than implied by the output ordering.

Trim the 'Good phrases' list and 'What to Flag' list to the highest-signal items; several entries restate ideas already covered by the numbered standards.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is thorough but extensively restates the same themes (code judo, spaghetti, abstraction, file size) across 'Non-Negotiable Standards', 'What to Flag', 'Preferred Remedies', and 'Good phrases', producing noticeable repetition that could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, usable guidance via an explicit baseline prompt, enumerated numbered standards, and ready-to-use example phrases; it is mostly executable for an instruction-style review skill with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear prioritized output order and approval bar exist, but there is no sequenced review workflow with validation checkpoints (e.g., diff inspection -> structural analysis -> feedback), so the workflow is listed but checkpoints are implicit.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clearly headed sections (Core Prompt, Standards, Questions, What to Flag, Remedies, Tone, Output, Approval Bar) with no external bundle files needed and all content at one level, leaving only minor organization gaps.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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, specific description with explicit what/when structure and rich natural trigger terms including the distinctive 'thermonuclear' phrasing. Minor room for sharper enumeration of concrete review actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several concrete actions ('maintainability review', 'abstraction quality', 'giant files', 'spaghetti-condition growth') covering distinct facets, though it stops short of fully enumerating the review mechanics, leaving minor coverage gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Run an extremely strict maintainability review...') and 'when' ('Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review...') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger coverage including synonyms and phrasings users would actually say ('thermonuclear review', 'deep code quality audit', 'especially harsh maintainability review').

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'extremely strict / harsh / thermonuclear' framing carves a clear niche distinct from ordinary code review skills, with only minor overlap risk against generic review skills.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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
cursor/plugins
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.