CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

fusion-dependency-review

Review dependency PRs with structured research, existing-PR-discussion capture, multi-lens analysis (security, code quality, impact), and a repeatable verdict template. USE FOR: dependency update PRs, Renovate/Dependabot PRs, library upgrade reviews, "review this dependency PR", "should we merge this update". DO NOT USE FOR: feature PRs, application code reviews, dependency automation/bot configuration, or unattended merge without confirmation.

64

Quality

78%

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 ./.agents/skills/fusion-dependency-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 content provides a well-sequenced, validation-gated workflow for a mutation-capable skill, but is weakened by duplication across orchestration sections and by heavy reliance on agents/*.md files that are not present in the bundle. Tightening the redundant sections and adding or removing the missing advisor files would raise both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Collapse 'Preferred advisor orchestration' and 'Workflow summary' into a single canonical sequence and drop the separate 'Advisors' re-listing to remove redundancy and trim the body.

Either add the referenced agents/*.md advisor files to the bundle or rewrite the body to describe the orchestration inline without invoking missing files, so progressive-disclosure references all resolve.

Trim the 'Always' list to the load-bearing rules (merge/approve gating, checkpoint comments, evidence requirements) and cut explanatory gloss like the parenthetical enumerating what a shared research packet contains.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but contains notable duplication — 'Preferred advisor orchestration' and 'Workflow summary' restate the same five-step flow, the 'Advisors' section re-lists every advisor already described inline, and the long 'Always' list includes over-explanation (e.g. spelling out what a shared research packet contains).

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete with explicit file references and sequencing, but the central executable components (the agents/*.md advisors) are referenced throughout yet do not exist in the bundle, leaving the orchestration unbacked by the assets it depends on.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The review flow is clearly sequenced (target → research → parallel lenses → verdict → conditional source-control) with explicit decision gates and validation checkpoints such as posting the research and verdict comments before any mutation, though some redundancy between sections slightly muddies the canonical sequence.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good with dedicated Assets/References sections pointing one level deep to real files, but the body repeatedly references a non-existent agents/ directory of advisor files, a structural gap that breaks navigation for the skill's primary execution path.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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 is strong across all dimensions: third-person voice, concrete capabilities, comprehensive natural trigger terms, and explicit what/when guidance with clear boundary setting. No revisions needed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'structured research, existing-PR-discussion capture, multi-lens analysis (security, code quality, impact), and a repeatable verdict template' — giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill does.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (structured review producing a verdict) and 'when' via dedicated 'USE FOR' and 'DO NOT USE FOR' clauses with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural user phrases ('review this dependency PR', 'should we merge this update') alongside tool names (Renovate/Dependabot) and synonyms (dependency update PRs, library upgrade reviews), spanning the full trigger space.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (dependency PR review) with explicit negative scope excluding feature PRs, app code reviews, and bot configuration, minimizing overlap with adjacent skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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.

Validation15 / 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.