CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

omni-compression

Configure RTK (command output), Caveman (prose), and stacked compression modes. Manage language packs, custom rules, and test prompt compression reducing tokens by 60–90%.

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/omni-compression/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%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.

The body is a solid executable cookbook — every common configuration task has a ready curl command with a real payload, and errors are mapped to fixes. Its weaknesses are structural: a duplicated generated endpoint listing pads the file, credentials and hostnames are inconsistent between halves, and workflows lack explicit post-change validation.

Suggestions

Delete or merge the generated endpoint listing — its "POST /api/compression/preview" entry and empty `-d '{}'` bodies duplicate the richer curated recipes, roughly halving the file.

Standardize authentication and host references across all examples ($OMNIROUTE_KEY vs $OMNIROUTE_TOKEN, localhost:20128 vs $OMNIROUTE_URL) so every command is uniformly copy-paste ready.

Add an explicit validation step after configuration changes, e.g. re-GET /api/settings/compression or check omniroute_compression_status savings, turning the recipes into a verified workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Prose is lean and explains nothing Claude already knows, but the entire generated endpoint section duplicates the curated recipes below it ("POST /api/compression/preview" is documented twice, once with a useless placeholder `-d '{}'`), and sub-headings like "POST compression › compare" merely repeat their own headings. Mostly efficient but with real duplication that should be trimmed — anchor 3, not 2, since there is no conceptual padding or fluff.

3 / 5

Actionability

The curated half gives copy-paste-ready curl commands with concrete JSON bodies ("mode": "rtk", "stackedPipeline": ["rtk", "caveman"], cavemanConfig, mcpAccessibility) and an error section mapping failures to fixes. Anchor 4 rather than 5 because the generated half ships empty `-d '{}'` payloads and credentials are inconsistent across sections ($OMNIROUTE_TOKEN vs $OMNIROUTE_KEY, hardcoded localhost:20128 vs $OMNIROUTE_URL).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Recipes are loosely ordered (get current settings → preview → enable → configure → disable) and "Preview compression before enabling" acts as an implicit checkpoint, but there is no explicit sequence and no post-change validation step (e.g. re-GET settings or check savings). Fits anchor 3 (sequence present, checkpoints implicit or missing); the operations are non-destructive single-setting changes, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Defering payload schemas to the OpenAPI spec ("See the full OpenAPI specification at GET /api/openapi/spec") is good disclosure, but the ~215-line body inlines the full endpoint reference that belongs in a separate file, the two duplicated halves (generated + curated) impair navigation, and no bundle files exist to back the referenced docs/openapi.yaml. Anchor 3: some structure, but organization could be significantly better.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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.

The description communicates concrete, specific capabilities with a memorable quantified benefit, but it reads as a capability list rather than a trigger-optimized skill description. Its main weaknesses are the complete absence of any "when to use this" guidance and reliance on product jargon over natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user wants to reduce token usage or costs from command output, build logs, or chat history, or mentions OmniRoute compression settings."

Include natural user phrasings alongside product terms, e.g. "compress terminal/build output", "save tokens", "trim context" — users asking for these won't say "RTK" or "Caveman" unprompted.

Briefly name the additional documented capabilities (enable/stack engines, preview savings before enabling, MCP accessibility-tree filtering) to close the coverage gap in the "what".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Configure RTK (command output), Caveman (prose), and stacked compression modes" and "Manage language packs, custom rules, and test prompt compression" list several concrete actions with a quantified outcome ("reducing tokens by 60–90%"), matching anchor 4. Not 5 because coverage has gaps (no mention of enabling/disabling, previewing, or comparing compression).

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (configure compression modes, manage language packs/rules, test compression), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 2 because the "what" is specific and multi-part.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"compression", "prompt compression", and "tokens" are relevant keywords, but "RTK" and "Caveman" are product-specific jargon users would not naturally say, and common variations like "reduce token usage" or "save tokens" are absent. Fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing variations) rather than 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Named proprietary engines ("RTK", "Caveman", "stacked compression modes") plus "language packs" and "custom rules" carve a mostly distinct niche, with only minor overlap risk against generic token-saving/cost-reduction skills. Fits anchor 4 rather than 5 because no explicit trigger phrases distinguish it further.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

diegosouzapw/OmniRoute

Path

skills/omni-compression/SKILL.md

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.