CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

fusion-code-conventions

Applies and explains code conventions across TypeScript, React, C#, and Markdown. Enforces naming rules, file naming patterns, TSDoc and XML doc standards, inline comment intent (the *why*, not the *what*), code structure, error handling, async patterns, and dead code policy. Also enforces ADR and contributor doc decisions, and flags decisions that appear stale or misaligned with current tooling. USE FOR: convention questions, code review against project standards, applying naming rules, auditing intent comments, checking TSDoc completeness, enforcing recorded ADR decisions, and flagging stale architectural decisions. DO NOT USE FOR: security vulnerability scanning, performance profiling, runtime debugging, or generating net-new code without a review target.

66

Quality

83%

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

71%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 orchestrator skill body: precise routing rules, a sensible precedence model for repo-vs-skill conflicts, and a clear tiered reporting workflow with user-approval gates on mutation. Its main defect is bundle integrity — the six agent files the whole workflow depends on are referenced but absent, which undermines both navigation and executability.

Suggestions

Ship the six agents/*.agent.md files (typescript, react, csharp, markdown, intent, constitution) in the bundle, or remove the agent-mode routing and inline the per-language checks — currently Step 1 routes every review to files that do not exist.

Trim the 11-bullet trigger list in 'When to use' and the 'When not to use' section, which restate the description's USE FOR / DO NOT USE FOR content and add token cost without new information.

Add a post-correction verification step (e.g., re-run the convention check on edited files and confirm no new Required findings) to close the workflow feedback loop after applying user-approved corrections.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely lean — routing table, precedence rules, and the four-step workflow all assume Claude's competence with no concept explanations. The 11-item trigger list and the 'When not to use' section partially duplicate the description's USE FOR / DO NOT USE FOR clauses and could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: file-extension classification rules ('.ts, non-component .tsx'), a named agent routing table, tiered finding categories (Required / Recommended / Advisory), and explicit correction policy. Minor gaps only — e.g., no example of a finding's 'state the rule, affected code, corrected version' format.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The four steps (classify/route, apply, present, correct) are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints — 'If language cannot be determined, ask before proceeding' and 'Apply only corrections the user explicitly approves'. A post-correction re-check loop is absent, keeping it below a 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure and reference signaling are good (agent-mode table, one-level-deep references/*.conventions.md, assets/*.follow-up.md that all resolve), but scored against the actual bundle: the six agents/*.agent.md files that Step 1 routes every review through do not exist in the bundle, leaving the primary execution path pointing at missing files. This is more than a minor organization gap, so it sits below 4.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

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 description: third-person voice, comprehensive concrete capabilities across four languages, an explicit USE FOR trigger list, and DO NOT USE boundaries that reduce conflict with adjacent review skills. The only weakness is keyword coverage — a few natural synonyms and file extensions users would actually type are missing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

'Enforces naming rules, file naming patterns, TSDoc and XML doc standards, inline comment intent (the why, not the what), code structure, error handling, async patterns, and dead code policy' enumerates ten-plus concrete actions across four named languages plus ADR/contributor-doc enforcement — comprehensive coverage with no notable gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' via 'Applies and explains code conventions across TypeScript, React, C#, and Markdown...' and the 'when' via a concrete 'USE FOR:' clause plus a 'DO NOT USE FOR:' boundary — matching the top anchor's pattern.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'convention questions, code review against project standards, applying naming rules, checking TSDoc completeness, enforcing recorded ADR decisions, flagging stale architectural decisions' gives good natural keyword coverage, but misses common variations users would say ('code style', 'linting', 'best practices') and file extensions (.ts, .tsx, .cs).

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (convention enforcement plus ADR/constitution compliance for specific languages) is mostly distinct, and 'DO NOT USE FOR: security vulnerability scanning, performance profiling, runtime debugging' bounds it against adjacent skills. Minor overlap remains with generic code-review skills via the 'code review against project standards' trigger, keeping it below 5.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

equinor/fusion-framework

Path

.agents/skills/fusion-code-conventions/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.