frb-fix-codecov

Use when a flutter_rust_bridge PR has Codecov patch or project coverage drops, Codecov comments mention missing lines, or you need to decide whether to add tests or justified coverage-ignore markers.

Quality

82%

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

Quality

Content

83%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 workflow with strong validation feedback loops and copy-paste-ready commands. The chief weakness is progressive disclosure: it leans on bundled scripts and sibling skills that are not present in the bundle, leaving navigation and file structure unverified.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced scripts/codecov_analyzer.py (or a references/ doc) so the invoked analyzer path actually exists in the bundle.

Move the long marker-syntax and Codecov-status reference material into a one-level-deep reference file and link to it from SKILL.md to keep the overview lean.

Confirm the sibling skill names (frb-develop-feature, frb-test, tom-frb-env) resolve to installed skills, or note that they are optional prerequisites.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence, with executable commands and inline markers rather than concept explanations; a few sentences (e.g., restating both Codecov statuses) could be tightened, but padding is minimal.	4 / 5
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready analyzer commands, exact endpoint names, concrete ignore-marker syntax for both Rust and Dart, and named sibling skills to invoke, covering the common cases fully.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear two-step sequence (collect facts, choose fix) with an explicit Verification section containing validation checkpoints (re-read files, run focused test, check Codecov statuses, repeat from latest report if still red), including an error-recovery feedback loop.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-sectioned within SKILL.md, but it references a bundled analyzer script (codecov_analyzer.py) and several sibling skills yet the bundle directories (references/, scripts/, assets/) are absent, so the referenced paths cannot be verified and the structure is effectively inline rather than split across files.	3 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

81%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 well-constructed description with explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance and a sharply scoped, low-conflict niche. The main weakness is specificity, where it states the decision to make rather than enumerating the concrete actions the skill performs.

Suggestions

Name the concrete operations the skill performs (e.g., 'computes exact missing patch lines, fetches Codecov reports, and edits ignore markers') instead of only the decision outcome.

Add common synonyms such as 'code coverage' or 'coverage report' alongside 'Codecov' to broaden natural-trigger matching.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain (Codecov coverage on flutter_rust_bridge PRs) but describes only two actions — 'decide whether to add tests or justified coverage-ignore markers' — rather than a comprehensive list of concrete operations.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what ('decide whether to add tests or justified coverage-ignore markers') and when ('Use when a flutter_rust_bridge PR has Codecov patch or project coverage drops...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It surfaces natural terms a user would say ('Codecov', 'patch or project coverage drops', 'Codecov comments mention missing lines', 'add tests'), with good coverage, though synonyms like 'code coverage report' or file extensions are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The trigger is tightly scoped to flutter_rust_bridge Codecov PR comments, a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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: fzyzcjy/flutter_rust_bridge
Path: .claude/skills/frb-fix-codecov/SKILL.md
Commit: 8f2ab1b

Reviewed: ~2 hours 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.