CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

scope-maintenance-task

Use this skill to interactively scope a maintenance idea into a properly formatted task for the Android Agentic Maintenance Backlog. Invoke when the user wants to add a task to the maintenance backlog, scope a new maintenance idea, or says things like "I want to add something to the backlog", "help me scope a maintenance task", or "can we add this as a maintenance item".

74

Quality

91%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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.

An exemplary compact skill body: an explicit five-step interactive workflow with a validation checklist, a fallback protocol for unresolved ambiguity, and crisply specified required sections with concrete examples. The only real gap is actionability detail — placeholder module names in the validation commands and no worked example of a completed task description.

Suggestions

Add one worked example of a fully scoped task (all five sections filled in for a real module) so the agent has a concrete target format to match, closing the actionability gap.

Replace or supplement the ':my-feature-impl' placeholder with a note on how to derive the actual module path (e.g., from the repo's settings.gradle) so the Validation section is fully executable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~55-line body is lean with zero padding: it never explains concepts Claude already knows, and every line adds project-specific rules (section requirements, the [NEEDS INPUT: <what is missing>] convention, the project GID). Concrete anti-examples like 'Vague entries like "clean up the code" are not acceptable' earn their tokens; this matches 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place' rather than the anchor 4 case of trimmable over-explanation.

5 / 5

Actionability

The guidance is largely executable: named downstream skill (run-maintenance-task), named creation skill (ddg-asana) with an Asana API fallback, a literal project GID and 'Ready' section, a formatted [NEEDS INPUT] marker, and example validation commands. It falls short of fully copy-paste ready because the gradle commands use placeholder modules (:my-feature-impl) with no instruction on how to resolve them, and there is no worked example of a finished scoped task — matching 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps' rather than 'specific examples cover the common cases'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence is present with an explicit pre-creation validation checkpoint ('## Checklist before creating the task') and a feedback loop for error recovery (ask clarifying questions, and if anything remains unclear, mark uncertain sections with [NEEDS INPUT]). This matches the top anchor 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists'; the operation is non-destructive so the validation-cap rule does not bind, and the missing pieces at anchor 4 (checkpoints or feedback loops) are both present.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a simple, self-contained skill: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist, nothing needs to be split out, and the body is organized into well-signaled sections ('## Required sections', '## Checklist before creating the task') with each required section clearly labeled. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections with no need for external references score 5; there is no inlined bulk content that would justify anchor 4 or below.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

90%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 description: explicit what/when, natural quoted trigger phrases, third-person-style phrasing, and a clearly bounded niche. The main gap is that it describes the workflow at a high level without naming the concrete deliverable components (required task sections, Asana task creation), leaving capability coverage at moderate specificity.

Suggestions

Mention the concrete deliverable components in the description (e.g., 'produces tasks with Context, Approach, Validation, Constraints, and Scope sections and creates them in the backlog') to lift capability specificity from 1-2 actions to several listed actions.

Optionally note the downstream consumer ('for execution by the run-maintenance-task skill') so users can distinguish this scoping skill from execution skills at trigger time.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names its domain ('Android Agentic Maintenance Backlog') and 1-2 concrete actions ('interactively scope a maintenance idea into a properly formatted task', 'add a task to the maintenance backlog'), but does not enumerate the deliverable structure (required sections, Asana creation) that would make coverage comprehensive. It fits the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — a 4 would require several distinct listed actions, which this single-workflow description does not have.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' ('interactively scope a maintenance idea into a properly formatted task for the Android Agentic Maintenance Backlog') and 'when' ('Invoke when the user wants to add a task... or says things like...') with concrete quoted trigger phrases. Both halves are present and explicit, matching the anchor 'Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'; a 4 would require a less explicit 'when'.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes verbatim natural phrases users would say ('I want to add something to the backlog', 'help me scope a maintenance task', 'can we add this as a maintenance item') alongside paraphrased triggers ('add a task to the maintenance backlog', 'scope a new maintenance idea'). This is comprehensive natural-term coverage with synonyms; no relevant trigger variation is missing (file extensions are inapplicable to this workflow), so it matches the top anchor rather than 'a few natural terms missing'.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is tightly scoped to one named artifact ('the Android Agentic Maintenance Backlog') and its creation/scoping triggers ('add', 'scope') are distinct from execution-style skills like run-maintenance-task, minimizing overlap risk. It matches 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' rather than the anchor 4 case of notable overlap with a closely related skill.

5 / 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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
duckduckgo/Android
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.