ac-code-validator

Validate code quality and standards. Use when running linting, checking types, validating code style, or performing static analysis.

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/ac-code-validator/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

68%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 body is lean and action-oriented with a clean section structure and a valid script reference. Its weakest area is workflow clarity, where the destructive auto-fix operation lacks explicit validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validate-then-fix-then-revalidate sequence for auto_fix, including a checkpoint that re-runs validation and aborts on new errors.

Remove the redundant 'Validate code against quality standards and style guidelines' intro line since the Purpose section already states it.

Make the Quick Start example fully executable by showing how project_dir is obtained (e.g. an import or path assignment).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is code-focused and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the opening 'Validate code against quality standards and style guidelines' line is restated by the Purpose section, so minor trimming is possible; not a 5 due to that redundancy.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete imports and method calls ('from scripts.code_validator import CodeValidator', 'await validator.run_lint()') plus a full result schema give mostly executable guidance; minor gaps such as the undefined 'project_dir' variable keep it from being fully copy-paste ready.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Validation types are listed but not sequenced with explicit checkpoints, and the auto_fix path is a batch/destructive operation with no validate-then-retry feedback loop, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the rubric.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-sectioned and the full implementation is delegated via a one-level reference to the existing 'scripts/code_validator.py' file; minor organization gaps (e.g. inline config/result blocks) keep it from a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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 concise and answers both what and when with concrete, natural trigger terms. Its main weakness is a slightly generic 'what' clause and the absence of synonyms/file extensions that would push it to the top anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The 'Use when' clause lists several concrete actions ('running linting, checking types, validating code style, or performing static analysis'), matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor coverage gaps; the lead 'Validate code quality and standards' alone would be more generic, but the enumerated actions lift it above a 3.	4 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' ('Validate code quality and standards') and an explicit 'when' ('Use when running linting, checking types...') are present with concrete trigger phrases; the 'what' is slightly generic, keeping it just below a 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'linting', 'checking types', 'code style', and 'static analysis' are natural phrases users would actually say, giving good keyword coverage; it lacks synonyms or file extensions, so it does not reach comprehensive 5-level coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The static-analysis/linting/type-checking niche is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against closely related quality-review skills; not a 5 because 'code quality and standards' is broad enough to brush against general code-review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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: fernandezbaptiste/Skrillz
Path: skills/ac-code-validator/SKILL.md
Commit: 93ed392

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.