CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

ponytail-lazy-senior-dev

Applies the "lazy senior developer" mindset. Use this skill whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs to prioritize code reuse, minimalism, YAGNI principles, and root-cause fixes. Also use whenever the user says "ponytail", "be lazy", "lazy mode", "simplest solution", "minimal solution", "yagni", "do less", or "shortest path". Supports intensity levels: lite, full (default), ultra. Also includes sub-modes for over-engineering review (ponytail-review), repo-wide audit (ponytail-audit), and debt tracking (ponytail-debt).

Quality

82%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 unusually well-crafted behavioral skill: punchy, concrete, with executable commands, exact output formats, and worked examples for every mode. Its weaknesses are structural — three sub-modes totaling nearly half the file are inlined in SKILL.md instead of living in one-level-deep reference files — plus minor redundancy between the ladder, Strict Rules, and the 'What NOT to Be Lazy About' section.

Suggestions

Move sections 10–12 (ponytail-review, ponytail-audit, ponytail-debt) into separate reference files (e.g. references/review-mode.md, references/audit-mode.md, references/debt-tracking.md), keeping only a one-line trigger summary of each in SKILL.md.

Deduplicate the repeated 'understand the problem before climbing the ladder' guidance (ladder note, 'Shortest working diff wins', Section 6) into a single statement, and state the 'never add a dependency for what a few lines can do' rule once.

Add a validate→fix→retry loop for the testing mandate (e.g. 'run the suite → if a check fails, fix and re-run → only then declare the phase complete') to upgrade workflow clarity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence (no padding, no explaining concepts Claude already knows), but repeats key ideas: 'Never add a new one for what a few lines can do' appears in both ladder rung 5 and Strict Rules, and 'understand the problem first' is stated three times (ladder note, 'Shortest working diff wins', Section 6).

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides an executable command ('grep -rnE \u0027(#|//) ?ponytail:\u0027 .'), exact copy-paste output templates ('L<line>: <tag> <what>. <replacement>.', '<file>:<line>, <what was simplified>. ceiling: <the limit named>. upgrade: <the trigger to revisit>.'), a tags table, and concrete worked examples per intensity level ('@lru_cache(maxsize=1000)', 'Intl.DateTimeFormat', 'dict(zip(keys, values))') — maximally actionable for an instruction-only skill.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 7-rung ladder is an explicitly ordered decision process ('stop at the first rung that holds') and the Two-Layer Testing Mandate ('full test suite must pass with zero failures before the phase is declared complete') is a real checkpoint; all sub-modes are read-only ('Does not apply the fixes, only lists them') so no destructive-operation cap applies. Falls short of 5 because no validate→fix→retry feedback loop is spelled out anywhere.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single 217-line file with no bundle files at all; sections 10–12 (~100 lines of sub-mode specs, each with its own trigger conditions) are exactly the selectively-used material that belongs in separate reference files. Internal structure (headers, tables, examples) is good, but content that should be split out is inlined and no references exist.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

80%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 strong description that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with an unusually rich set of natural trigger phrases and documented sub-modes. Its main weaknesses are the near-universal 'generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs' trigger that invites conflicts with every general coding skill, and capability language that stays at the principle level rather than concrete actions.

Suggestions

Narrow the catch-all trigger 'whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs' to contexts where over-engineering risk is actually in play (e.g. 'when a request risks over-engineering, unnecessary abstractions, or new dependencies'), reserving automatic invocation for explicit triggers.

Add missing natural trigger synonyms such as 'simplify', 'over-engineered', 'too complex', or 'KISS' to the trigger phrase list.

Make the core capability slightly more concrete, e.g. name the decision procedure ('applies a 7-rung ladder: skip speculative need, reuse existing code, stdlib, platform features, existing deps, then write the minimum diff').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several specific behaviors ('code reuse, minimalism, YAGNI principles, and root-cause fixes', 'over-engineering review (ponytail-review), repo-wide audit (ponytail-audit), and debt tracking (ponytail-debt)') with intensity levels, but the capabilities are principle-flavored rather than object-level concrete actions, leaving minor gaps versus a fully comprehensive enumeration.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Applies the "lazy senior developer" mindset... prioritize code reuse, minimalism, YAGNI principles, and root-cause fixes') and when ('Use this skill whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs... Also use whenever the user says...') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes eight natural phrases users would say ('ponytail', 'be lazy', 'lazy mode', 'simplest solution', 'minimal solution', 'yagni', 'do less', 'shortest path'), but common synonyms like 'simplify', 'over-engineered', 'KISS', or 'too complex' are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The clause 'whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs' is a catch-all that overlaps virtually every coding skill, keeping conflict risk high even though the distinctive tokens ('ponytail', 'lazy mode') and named sub-modes carve out a recognizable niche.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

glenrioariesto/social-content-studio

Path

.agents/skills/ponytail-lazy-senior-dev/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.