CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ci-formats-review

Review SARIF, CodeClimate, compact, markdown, badge, and other CI-facing output formats for correctness and integrator expectations. Use when changes affect machine-consumed report formats or CI presentation layers.

66

Quality

78%

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/ci-formats-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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 tight, well-structured instruction-only review checklist that delegates substance to external files; it is highly concise but only partially actionable from the body alone since the referenced detail files are not bundled.

Suggestions

Inline a few concrete format-specific checks (e.g., a SARIF schema validation command or a snapshot-stability rule) so the body is actionable even when the referenced files are unavailable.

Confirm the referenced paths (.agents/agents/ci-formats-reviewer.md, .agents/rules/testing.md) exist or are bundled, since broken references weaken progressive disclosure.

Add an explicit self-validation step before emitting the final APPROVE/CONCERN/BLOCK verdict (e.g., re-check that snapshots are stable and empty-input cases are handled).

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and efficient with no padding or over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line (prep reads, focus list, verdict gate) earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

Gives some concrete directives (read two named files, end with APPROVE/CONCERN/BLOCK) but the substantive review criteria are delegated to referenced files that are not present in the bundle, leaving key details missing.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear prepare-review-verdict sequence with a final verdict checkpoint; minor validation gaps but no destructive or batch operation that would force a cap at 3.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clean overview body with well-signaled, one-level-deep references ("Read ... before reviewing", "Also read ... when ..."), but the referenced paths point outside the skill bundle and cannot be verified as appropriately split content.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

82%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 with explicit what/when structure and a well-scoped niche; its only weakness is a narrow action vocabulary ("Review") despite listing many concrete format targets.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and concrete review criteria ("for correctness and integrator expectations") plus six specific formats, but the action vocabulary is narrow (a single "Review" verb), so coverage is not comprehensive as required for a 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

Clearly answers both what ("Review SARIF, CodeClimate ... for correctness and integrator expectations") and when with an explicit "Use when changes affect machine-consumed report formats or CI presentation layers" trigger clause.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage including natural format names users would say ("SARIF", "CodeClimate", "markdown", "badge") plus "machine-consumed report formats" and "CI presentation layers", though a few synonyms are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (CI-facing machine-consumed output formats) with distinct, specific triggers that are unlikely to collide with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
fallow-rs/fallow
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.