Tessl • The management layer for AI agent skills

The body is an efficient, highly actionable operational guide with concrete detection tables and executable commands. Its main weakness is workflow validation: batch auto-fix operations lack an explicit verify/re-run/diff-review checkpoint, capping workflow clarity. The undefined $TARGET variable is a small executable gap.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation step after auto-fix (e.g., re-run the linter without --fix to confirm remaining issues, or instruct reviewing the diff with git diff before reporting) to satisfy the batch-operation feedback-loop requirement.

Define the target variable consistently: replace $TARGET in the command examples with $ARGUMENTS (declared in the body) or state a default (e.g., the project root) when no argument is given.

Trim the Anti-Rationalization table and merge the two output examples into one to tighten token usage, keeping the strongest counter-excuse row.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Detection tables and commands are tight and operational (e.g., "ls biome.json biome.jsonc .eslintrc.*"), with only minor trimmable content such as the Anti-Rationalization table ("Lint errors accumulate. 5 today become 50 next week") and a second illustrative output block. This fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the fully lean 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is mostly copy-paste ready ("npx biome check $TARGET --write", "npx eslint $TARGET --fix", "deno lint --fix $TARGET") with specific detection checks, but the commands reference $TARGET which is never defined — the body declares "Target: $ARGUMENTS" — a minor executable gap matching the 4 anchor rather than fully executable 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-5 (detect linter, detect formatter, run lint, run formatter, report) are clearly sequenced with concrete commands, but auto-fixing with --write/--fix is a batch file-modifying operation and the workflow has no validation or verification step (no re-run check, no diff review in the sequence — only "If unsure, review the diff" buried in the Anti-Rationalization table). Per the rubric, missing validation in batch operations caps workflow clarity at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The single-file structure is well organized with clear sections (When to Use, Workflow, Output, Rules) and no bundle files exist, so nothing is misdirected to missing references. It fits 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed' — at ~117 lines with illustrative output examples all inline, it is solid but not the model of a lean overview with well-signaled external references that defines the 5 anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

83%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: it explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it, using concrete third-person action verbs and natural trigger terms. Keyword coverage and distinctiveness are good rather than comprehensive, leaving small room for synonym and tool-name expansion.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"detects linter, runs it, and fixes what it can" lists three concrete capability actions in third-person voice ("detects", "runs", "fixes"), matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. Not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (no mention of formatting or reporting), and not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions.	4 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both: what ("detects linter, runs it, and fixes what it can") and when ("Use when you need to lint the codebase and auto-fix issues") with a concrete trigger phrase. This matches the 5 anchor (both what and when clearly explicit) rather than 4, where the 'when' would be less specific.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural user phrases are present: "lint the codebase", "auto-fix issues", "linter". A few natural terms are missing (e.g., "code style", "formatting", or tool names like ESLint/Prettier), fitting the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"lint the codebase and auto-fix issues" carves a clear niche with the distinct trigger "lint", giving minimal conflict risk; only minor overlap with closely related formatting/code-cleanup skills keeps it at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
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/lint/SKILL.md
Revision: cd716d9

Reviewed: 8 days ago

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.

lint

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?