CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

brain-link-discipline

When you report a brain page to the user — created, edited, committed, or relayed from a subagent — a working link is part of the deliverable, in the SAME message. Derive the path mechanically (git ls-files --full-name), push BEFORE linking, verify the link resolves when a hosted remote exists, and degrade through a defined fallback chain when it doesn't. Inside brain pages the rule inverts: relative links preserve the link graph; absolute URLs are for chat deliverables only.

Quality

77%

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 ./plugin-variants/gbrain-coding/skills/brain-link-discipline/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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 a highly actionable, well-sequenced procedure with genuinely strong verification and error-recovery steps — both actionability and workflow clarity are top-tier. The costs are verbosity from restating the core rule across multiple sections and a monolithic single-file structure that inlines content which could live in reference files.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repetition of the same-message rule: state it once in 'The rule' and let the Contract and Anti-Patterns sections reference it rather than restate it, trimming the body substantially.

Split stable detail — the Dedup boundary map, the token-security note, and the gbrain error-code handling — into a references/ file (e.g., references/edge-cases.md) linked from the relevant sections, moving the skill toward a lean overview plus one-level-deep references.

Verify or bundle the externally referenced files (../_output-rules.md, ../conventions/brain-first.md, scripts/brain-commit-push.sh) so the skill is self-contained when distributed outside its home repo.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly information-dense, but the same-message rule is restated across at least four sections ('The rule', 'Contract', 'Anti-Patterns', 'Output Format'), and passages like 'The most common link bug is committing a brain page and forcing the user to go find it' restate the opening. Fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the minor-trim level 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance: the exact derivation command 'cd "$(dirname <file>)" && git ls-files --full-name "$(basename <file>)"', a complete curl verification with a 200-only rule, an ordered three-step fallback chain, a ready-to-paste subagent prompt blockquote, and concrete output-format examples. Not 4: no gaps in covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The push-before-link sequence is numbered with explicit validation ('the command must exit 0 and print "pushed <sha> to origin/<branch>"') and error-recovery feedback loops ('retry once on commit_lock_busy; stop and tell the user on integrate_conflict or writer_coordinator_required'). This is a reporting workflow rather than a destructive/batch one, so no validation cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned with clear headers and clearly signaled cross-skill references at the top, but it is a single ~245-line monolith: the Dedup boundaries, token-security detail, gbrain error handling, and output examples are all inline rather than split into references, and the referenced paths (../_output-rules.md, scripts/brain-commit-push.sh) exist outside the skill bundle with no bundled files to back them. Fits 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

71%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 concrete, comprehensive, and clearly scoped to a distinct niche, covering both what it does and when it applies. Its weaknesses are second-person voice (rubric-penalized on specificity) and the absence of the natural user trigger phrases that live only in the separate when_to_use field.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description in third person (e.g., 'Reports brain pages with a working link in the same message...') to avoid the specificity penalty for second-person voice.

Fold one or two concrete user-voice trigger phrases into the description itself (e.g., 'Use when the user asks for the link to a brain page or reports a 404') rather than relying solely on the when_to_use field, which would lift both completeness and trigger_term_quality.

Add synonyms users naturally say ('clickable link', 'send me a link', 'link 404s') to broaden keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Derive the path mechanically (git ls-files --full-name), push BEFORE linking, verify the link resolves when a hosted remote exists, and degrade through a defined fallback chain' — with comprehensive coverage. A 5 fit, but the second-person voice ('When you report a brain page to the user') takes the rubric's -1 specificity penalty.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both what (mechanical derivation, push-before-link ordering, verification, fallback chain, in-page inversion) and when ('When you report a brain page to the user — created, edited, committed, or relayed from a subagent') are explicit. Not 5: the 'when' is an agent-side condition rather than concrete user trigger phrases.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('brain page', 'working link', 'hosted remote', 'fallback chain'), but the natural user phrases ('give me the link', 'where is the page', 'why does this link 404') appear only in the frontmatter triggers/when_to_use, not the description itself — missing common variations. Not 4: the description lacks the user-voice phrasings that would make routing match naturally.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — outbound brain-page link delivery in chat messages, with the in-page inversion — that no generic git, commit, or link skill would claim; minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 4 suspicious

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

garrytan/gbrain

Path

plugin-variants/gbrain-coding/skills/brain-link-discipline/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.