gstack-openclaw-retro

Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns, and code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking. Team-aware with per-person contributions, praise, and growth areas. Use when asked for weekly retro, what shipped this week, or engineering retrospective.

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./openclaw/skills/gstack-openclaw-retro/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is a strong skill description that clearly communicates its purpose, lists concrete capabilities, and provides explicit trigger guidance. It uses third person voice consistently and covers both the 'what' and 'when' effectively. The description is concise yet comprehensive, with natural trigger terms that engineers would actually use.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: analyzes commit history, work patterns, code quality metrics, persistent history, trend tracking, per-person contributions, praise, and growth areas.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both what (analyzes commit history, work patterns, code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking, team-aware with per-person contributions) and when ('Use when asked for weekly retro, what shipped this week, or engineering retrospective').	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural trigger terms users would say: 'weekly retro', 'what shipped this week', 'engineering retrospective'. These are phrases engineers commonly use when requesting this type of analysis.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clearly occupies a distinct niche combining weekly retrospective format with commit analysis, team contributions, and trend tracking. The specific trigger terms like 'weekly retro' and 'engineering retrospective' are unlikely to conflict with general code analysis or git skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Implementation

57%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is highly actionable with excellent concrete git commands and well-defined output formats, making it very executable. However, it suffers from being a monolithic document (~300+ lines) that could benefit significantly from splitting into referenced sub-files, and it lacks validation checkpoints for file I/O operations and error states (empty repos, failed fetches, missing memory directory).

Suggestions

Split the skill into a concise overview SKILL.md with references to separate files for detailed steps (e.g., METRICS.md for Steps 2-8, TEAM_ANALYSIS.md for Step 9, HISTORY.md for Steps 12-13).

Add validation checkpoints: verify git fetch succeeds, check that commits exist in the window before proceeding, ensure memory/ directory exists before saving, and validate the saved JSON after writing.

Add error handling guidance for edge cases: empty commit windows, repos with no tags (version range), single-commit repos where session detection is meaningless, and missing memory/ directory.

Condense metric computation instructions — Claude can infer how to calculate percentages, build histograms, and format leaderboards from a brief specification rather than verbose examples for each.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is quite long (~300+ lines) with some redundancy and over-specification. Many of the metric calculations and formatting details could be condensed since Claude can infer how to compute LOC ratios, build histograms, and format leaderboards. However, most content is genuinely instructive rather than explaining basic concepts.	2 / 3
Actionability	Excellent actionability throughout — concrete, executable git commands are provided for every data-gathering step, specific metric formulas are defined, output formats are shown with examples, and the workflow is fully specified with copy-paste-ready bash commands.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 14-step sequence is clearly numbered and logically ordered, but there are no validation checkpoints or error-handling feedback loops. For example, there's no check that git fetch succeeded, no handling of empty commit windows, and no validation before saving history to memory/. The destructive operation of writing to memory/ lacks verification.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	This is a monolithic wall of text with all 14 steps inline in a single file. There are no bundle files and no references to external documents. The team analysis, compare mode, streak tracking, and history management could all be split into separate referenced files to keep the main skill scannable.	1 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: garrytan/gstack
Commit: 19770ea

Reviewed: 3 days 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.