CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

skillpack-harvest

Lift a proven skill from a host repo (e.g. your OpenClaw fork) back into gbrain's bundle so other clients can scaffold it. Editorial workflow: the CLI does the file copy + privacy lint; this skill drives the judgment-heavy genericization (scrub real names, generalize triggers, lift fork-specific conventions to references).

61

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/skillpack-harvest/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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 strong operational skill: an explicit done/NOT-done contract, a six-phase workflow with validation and rollback at every mutation boundary, a concrete editorial checklist, and named failure modes with recovery paths. The only real costs are mild repetition of the copy-not-move and lint-rationale points, and a single-file layout that inlines a checklist which could be a reference file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious, repo-specific guidance (path-confinement, rollback on lint match, slug collision handling) and teaches nothing Claude already knows. It falls short of 5 because a few points are repeated — 'harvest is a copy, not a move' appears in Anti-Patterns, Phase 5, and 'What harvest does NOT do', and the dry-run warning and lint-vs-editorial-pass rationale each appear twice — but these are minor trims, matching the 4 anchor ('minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed').

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste CLI invocations for dry-run, real harvest, and the bypass case; concrete verification commands (`bun test test/skills-conformance.test.ts`, `gbrain skillpack check --strict`, `gbrain skillpack list`); a Phase 3 checklist with specific before→after replacements ('garry → the user', 'Real people → placeholder slugs (alice-example, acme-example)'); and enumerated outcome states with a defined retry path. This matches the 5 anchor: copy-paste ready commands covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six phases are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and a real feedback loop: dry-run preview (Phase 2) before the mutating copy, privacy lint with rollback + non-zero exit (Phase 4), a lint_failed → 'Go back to Phase 3, scrub the host file, retry' recovery loop, conformance testing, drift check, and a hard stop for explicit user approval before commit. This is the 5 anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and a checklist for the complex editorial pass.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are all absent), so this is a single-file skill; structure comes from well-organized, consistently headed sections (Contract, Output Format, Anti-Patterns, Preconditions, Phases, Bypass, Files touched) with pointers like `src/core/skillpack/harvest-lint.ts` and `../_brain-filing-rules.md` kept one level deep. It does not reach 5 because the skill exceeds the under-50-line simple case and inlines ~245 lines where the Phase 3 genericization checklist could plausibly live in a reference file; it stays above 3 because nothing is buried or nested and every section is clearly signaled.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 specific and honest about the skill's editorial role, with a clearly distinct niche, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' guidance and leaves the natural trigger vocabulary ('harvest', 'publish', 'promote') out of the description text. It reads as a capability summary rather than a routing surface. Adding a one-line 'Use when...' clause with the user-facing verbs would lift both completeness and trigger coverage.

Suggestions

Append a 'Use when...' sentence to the description, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to harvest, publish, promote, or share a proven skill from their fork into the gbrain bundle' — this resolves the completeness cap and surfaces natural trigger terms in one move.

Move 2-3 of the highest-value natural phrases from the frontmatter triggers array (e.g. 'harvest this skill', 'publish this skill to gbrain') into the description body so routing can rely on the description alone.

State the precondition in the description ('a skill that has proven itself in production') so the description alone distinguishes harvest from casual sharing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'the CLI does the file copy + privacy lint; this skill drives the judgment-heavy genericization (scrub real names, generalize triggers, lift fork-specific conventions to references)' — with clear division of labor. It sits below the 5 anchor only because coverage of the full workflow (dry-run, verification, commit approval) is absent, and above 3 because multiple specific actions, not just 1-2, are named.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly answered (drives editorial genericization while the CLI handles copy + lint), but the description contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit 'when' guidance — the closest is the implicit 'Lift a proven skill from a host repo'. Per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3; it is above 2 because the 'what' is concrete, not vague.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant terms present in the description are 'Lift a proven skill from a host repo', 'scrub real names', and 'generalize triggers', but the natural user phrases ("harvest this skill", "publish/promote/share this skill") live only in the separate frontmatter triggers array, not in the description text itself. This matches the 3 anchor ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') rather than 4, which expects good coverage of natural terms within the description.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and unusual — lifting a proven skill upstream from a host fork into 'gbrain's bundle so other clients can scaffold it' — with little overlap risk against generic code or document skills. It does not reach 5 because the description itself lacks explicit distinguishing trigger phrases (those are in the triggers array), and broad verbs like 'lift'/'share' could brush against general publishing/sharing 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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 suspicious

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
garrytan/gbrain
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.