CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

kiro-validate-impl

Validate feature-level integration after all tasks are implemented. Checks cross-task consistency, full test suite, and overall spec coverage.

Quality

75%

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 ./tools/cc-sdd/templates/agents/codex-skills/skills/kiro-validate-impl/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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 content is a well-sequenced, highly actionable validation protocol with explicit decision gates, error scenarios, and feedback loops — workflow clarity is exemplary. Minor imperfections remain in token efficiency (slight redundancy in boundary/ownership prose) and actionability (unresolved placeholders and a case-flag mismatch in the secrets grep), and the skill is a single well-organized file with no external references.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operational (e.g. "Run: `grep -rn \"TBD\|TODO\|FIXME\|HACK\|XXX\" ...`", "If tests fail → NO-GO. No judgment needed.") with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the boundary-terminology prose and ownership-semantics paragraphs have some redundancy with the G.5 audit descriptions and could be tightened.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete grep commands, exact spec-file paths, an ordered command-discovery source list, and a fill-in report template make the guidance highly actionable for an instruction-only skill. Not 5 because `<files-in-feature-boundary>` placeholders are left unresolved and the secrets grep says "(case-insensitive)" while the command omits `-i`.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps are explicitly sequenced (detect target → load context → execute checks → generate report) with hard validation checkpoints ("If tests fail → NO-GO", "cannot be identified → MANUAL_VERIFY_REQUIRED"), error scenarios, and re-run/re-validate feedback loops. Matches the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation and recovery loops; the skill is read-only so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single file is well-structured with clear headers, a separated background section, and a clearly signaled report template. Not 5 because at ~185 lines a few sections (boundary glossary, smoke-command examples) could be split into reference files if the skill grows.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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 communicates a clear, fairly specific purpose with three concrete check actions, but lacks any explicit "Use when..." trigger clause or natural trigger synonyms, leaving both completeness and trigger-term quality at the middle anchor. It is distinct from per-task review skills but could better differentiate itself from adjacent spec-validation skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when all tasks of a feature are implemented and end-to-end validation is needed before declaring the feature complete."

Include natural trigger synonyms users would actually say, such as "integration validation", "verify implementation", or "feature complete check", alongside the existing domain terms.

Mention the GO/NO-GO decision output in the description so users know what the skill returns and to distinguish it from sibling validation skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Validate feature-level integration" plus "Checks cross-task consistency, full test suite, and overall spec coverage" lists several concrete, distinct actions. Not 5 because coverage is incomplete relative to the skill body (design alignment, boundary audit, and the GO/NO-GO report are unmentioned).

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (validate integration via three named checks), but "when" is only the weak temporal qualifier "after all tasks are implemented" with no explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "integration", "test suite", and "spec coverage" are domain-relevant, but there are no synonyms, natural user phrasings, or any "Use when..." trigger phrasing. Matches the anchor for some relevant keywords missing common variations.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"feature-level integration", "cross-task consistency", and "full test suite" carve a niche clearly separated from per-task validation skills. Not 5 because it does not fully disambiguate from a sibling spec-coverage or design-validation skill in the same workflow family.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

gotalab/cc-sdd

Path

tools/cc-sdd/templates/agents/codex-skills/skills/kiro-validate-impl/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.