CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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

80%

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 ./.agents/skills/fusion-code-conventions/SKILL.md
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 with clear precedence rules, concrete routing, and a sensible findings taxonomy, though slightly verbose in the trigger list. The main defect is that the routing workflow points at six agent files that do not exist in the bundle, leaving the core instructions unresolvable as shipped.

Suggestions

Ship the six referenced agents/*.agent.md files (or remove the agent-mode routing and run all checks inline) so the Step 1 routing targets actually resolve.

Add a post-correction verification step in Step 4 (e.g., re-run the matching convention check on the edited file and confirm no new violations before reporting done).

Trim the 11-item 'Typical triggers' list to the handful that are not already covered by the description's USE FOR clause.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body stays lean and assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations), but the 11-item 'Typical triggers' list largely duplicates the description's USE FOR list and could be trimmed. Not 5: that list and a few padded phrases are tokens that do not earn their place.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete routing by file extension ('TypeScript (.ts, non-component .tsx) -> agents/typescript.agent.md'), an explicit Required/Recommended/Advisory findings taxonomy with example items, and concrete edit constraints ('Don't rewrite entire files unless under 50 lines'). Not 5: no executable examples and the routing delegates to agent files whose content is not present.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-4 are clearly sequenced with input-validation gates ('If language cannot be determined, ask before proceeding') and a user-confirmation checkpoint before file mutation in Step 4. Not 5: there is no post-correction verification loop (e.g., re-check that the fix conforms) after applying edits.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The four references/*.conventions.md and three assets/*.follow-up.md files all exist and are clearly signaled via the agent table and bullet lists, but the six agents/*.agent.md files that the entire routing workflow depends on are absent from the bundle. Not 4: broken references to the primary navigation targets are more than 'minor organization gaps'.

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: specific multi-language capability list, explicit USE FOR triggers, and explicit DO NOT USE exclusions covering both what and when. Only minor gaps in keyword variations (file extensions, style synonyms) and a slight overlap risk on the generic 'code review' trigger.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: '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' plus ADR enforcement and stale-decision flagging across all four languages. Not 4: coverage of capabilities has no meaningful gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ('Applies and explains code conventions across TypeScript, React, C#, and Markdown...') and when ('USE FOR: convention questions, code review against project standards...') with concrete trigger phrases, plus a DO NOT USE boundary clause.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'USE FOR: convention questions, code review against project standards, applying naming rules, auditing intent comments, checking TSDoc completeness, enforcing recorded ADR decisions' gives good natural-phrase coverage. Not 5: missing file extensions (.ts, .tsx, .cs) and common synonyms such as 'code style' or 'linting'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The ADR/TSDoc/intent focus carves a clear niche and the 'DO NOT USE FOR: security vulnerability scanning, performance profiling, runtime debugging' clause reduces collisions. Not 5: 'code review against project standards' still risks overlap with a general code-review skill.

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
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.