CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

review-fix-violations

Use when architecture violations were found and need automated fixing by priority.

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 ./packs/nextjs/skills/review-fix-violations/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%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 an exemplary lean, actionable fix catalog with a prioritized checklist and an executable validation command after each fix. Its only weaknesses are a few underspecified remediations and the absence of an explicit validate-fail-retry loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Every line is a directive, a violation-to-fix mapping, or an executable command; there is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding, so every token earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

The body provides concrete violation-to-fix mappings ("try/catch in services -> remove, move error handling to hook or Server Action") and a copy-paste validation command, but a few remediations are directional rather than executable ("Components > 200 lines -> decompose", "any types -> type correctly").

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence with explicit validation after each fix and a prioritized fix checklist; however, the error-recovery loop (what to do when the validation command fails) is not stated, which matters for this batch code-modification workflow.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files and no need for external references, and it is organized into clear steps and priority tiers, which merits a top score under the simple-skill guideline.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 an explicit trigger clause and a distinctive niche, but it compresses the what into the when-clause and offers minimal keyword coverage. It reads as a bare trigger sentence rather than a capability statement, leaving a user or Claude to infer the scope of fixes.

Suggestions

State the capability explicitly before the trigger: e.g., "Fixes docs/ARCHITECTURE.md violations in priority order (critical, important, improvements). Use when architecture violations were found or when the user asks to fix architecture issues."

Add natural trigger synonyms such as "ARCHITECTURE.md", "fix architecture issues", or "architecture review fixes" so users' phrasing variations match.

Briefly enumerate the concrete actions (e.g., removing misplaced try/catch, adding 'use client'/'use server' directives, migrating server state) to raise specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("architecture violations") and one concrete action ("automated fixing by priority"), but does not enumerate the specific fixes performed, matching the anchor for domain plus 1-2 concrete actions rather than a list of several specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

An explicit "Use when..." clause is present, and the what ("automated fixing by priority") is stated, but only folded inside the when-clause rather than as a distinct capability statement, so the when could be more specific — fitting the anchor for both present with room for improvement.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"architecture violations", "automated fixing", and "priority" are relevant natural terms, but coverage is thin — missing common variations such as "fix architecture issues", "ARCHITECTURE.md", or "code review fixes", matching the anchor for some relevant keywords with missing synonyms.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Architecture violations ... automated fixing by priority" carves a fairly distinct niche tied to a specific review workflow, with only minor overlap risk against closely related code-fix or review skills.

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

packs/nextjs/skills/review-fix-violations/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.