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.

69

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

A thorough, actionable instruction skill with concrete rules, example phrasing, and a clear sequenced output and approval bar. Its main weakness is substantial cross-section redundancy that inflates length, and the absence of any progressive disclosure despite being well over 50 lines.

Suggestions

Consolidate the overlapping material in "Non-Negotiable Additional Standards", "Primary Review Questions", "What to Flag Aggressively", and "Preferred Remedies" — each restates the same smells (1k-line sprawl, spaghetti branching, thin wrappers, casts, wrong-layer logic) and could be merged into one table of smell→remedy to cut length.

Since the body exceeds 50 lines, consider moving the long flag/remedy lists or the "Approval Bar" presumptive-blockers into a referenced file (e.g. CRITERIA.md) linked from a concise overview, giving the skill genuine progressive disclosure.

Tighten the "Approval Bar" section, which largely repeats the Non-Negotiable Standards as blockers; reference the standards by number instead of restating them.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is directive and free of basic-concept filler, but the same ideas (1k-line files, spaghetti branching, thin wrappers, casts, wrong-layer logic, non-atomic updates) are restated across "Non-Negotiable Standards", "Primary Review Questions", "What to Flag Aggressively", "Preferred Remedies", and "Approval Bar", so it could be meaningfully tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, specific guidance: numbered rules with a concrete 1k-line threshold, copy-paste-ready "good phrases", a prioritized output order, and a clear approval bar with presumptive blockers.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The single review task is unambiguous, and "Output Expectations" sequences findings in an explicit prioritized order (1–7) with a clear approval/decision bar; no validation checkpoint is needed since review is non-destructive.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clearly headed and well-organized, but at ~188 lines the body is a monolithic single SKILL.md with no bundle files or one-level-deep references, so there is no progressive disclosure to navigate.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

90%

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 well-constructed description that clearly states both purpose and trigger conditions with strong, natural trigger-term coverage and a distinctive niche. The only weakness is that the action side is a single verb ("run a review") over several targets rather than a list of distinct actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and concrete focus areas ("abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth"), but the only action verb is "Run ... review" applied to those targets, rather than the multiple distinct concrete actions that anchor a 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Run an extremely strict maintainability review for...") and when ("Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review") with an explicit trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The "Use for" clause gives good natural coverage a user would actually say: "thermo-nuclear code quality review", "thermonuclear review", "deep code quality audit", and "especially harsh maintainability review", with several phrasings of the same intent.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The distinctive "thermo-nuclear / especially harsh / deep audit" framing carves a clear niche apart from ordinary code-review skills, making accidental triggering unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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
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.