CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

health

Use when assessing overall project quality, onboarding onto a new codebase, or before major refactoring to establish a baseline.

Quality

71%

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 ./skills/health/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 highly actionable, well-sequenced skill body with concrete commands and explicit scoring rubrics. Its main weaknesses are the absence of validation/error-handling guidance in the workflow and the monolithic inline structure where the report template and history schema could be split into reference files.

Suggestions

Add commands or heuristics for the unmeasured criteria — e.g., a complexity check (npx ts-complex, or a line/branch heuristic) and how to verify layer usage and naming conventions.

Include a brief validation step in the workflow for when tooling is missing or fails (no coverage tool, build errors, non-TypeScript project) so scores degrade gracefully instead of silently.

Move the full output template and history JSON schema into a references/ file (e.g., references/report-format.md) to slim SKILL.md to an overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense point-based scoring tables and copy-paste commands with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; minor trimmable sections such as the Anti-Rationalization table and the 87-line sample report keep it short of lean.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides executable commands (find, npx tsc --noEmit, npm test --coverage, grep patterns), explicit point rubrics, an exact output template, and a history save path — but several scoring criteria ('Module structure follows patterns', 'Low cyclomatic complexity') lack any measurement command.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear three-step sequence (gather metrics → calculate scores → generate report) with concrete commands per step and a Quick Mode variant; validation checkpoints are mostly implicit (e.g., no guidance for failed or unavailable tooling beyond 'if available').

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned with clear headings, but ~250 lines are fully inline and no reference files exist; the full output template and history JSON schema are content that could live in separate one-level-deep reference files.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 has strong, explicit trigger guidance with natural phrasing, but it is entirely 'when'-focused and never conveys what the skill actually does. Stating the concrete capability (weighted 5-category project health score with a breakdown report) would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Lead with the 'what': open with a concrete capability statement such as 'Generates a weighted project health score (architecture, tests, security, performance, maintainability) with a breakdown report and issue priorities.' before the 'Use when' clause.

Add trigger synonyms users commonly say, e.g. 'code audit', 'tech debt assessment', 'code health check', to broaden natural-term coverage.

Mention the distinguishing deliverable (score /100 with per-category breakdown and trend history) to reduce overlap with generic code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('assessing overall project quality', 'establish a baseline') with a couple of actions, but the actions are generic and the actual capability — generating a weighted health score across architecture, tests, security, performance, and maintainability — is never stated.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit ('Use when assessing... onboarding... or before major refactoring') but the 'what' is only weakly implied — it never states the skill produces a health score or report. Falls between anchor 2 ('when' without 'what') and anchor 4 (both present, 'when' more specific).

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say ('project quality', 'onboarding onto a new codebase', 'before major refactoring'), but misses common synonyms and variations like 'audit', 'tech debt', or 'code health'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Triggers are mostly distinct and specific to project assessment, with only minor overlap risk against closely related code-review or codebase-onboarding skills; not a clear niche like a scored 5-category health report would be.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

fernandezbaptiste/specialist-agent

Path

skills/health/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.