CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

coding

To implement features, fix bugs, and refactor with KISS/SOLID/DRY and systematic validation.

73

1.05x
Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

80%

1.05x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./instructions/r2/core/skills/coding/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

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

The body is token-efficient and well-structured with a real, shallow bundle reference, but it relies on abstract principles and checklists rather than concrete executable procedures, and lacks explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loops for the destructive operations it covers.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete, executable validation example (e.g. an actual curl command template or a Playwright/CLI snippet) so the validation methodology is actionable rather than abstract.

For destructive/batch operations like IaC, include an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop with the concrete command that re-runs validation before proceeding.

Replace a few abstract principles (e.g. 'Minimal changes: simpler is better') with concrete, decision-level guidance that tells Claude exactly how to decide.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative bullet directives with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (KISS/SOLID/DRY are named, not taught), so every token earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Most guidance is abstract principle ('KISS, SOLID, SRP, DRY, YAGNI — always', 'simpler is better') and checklists rather than concrete, executable procedures; it is an instruction-only skill, but the guidance stays at the principle level instead of specific steps.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The validation methodology gives a dependency-ordered sequence (databases → APIs → Web → Mobile) and a validation_checklist, but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop for the batch/destructive operations the skill mentions (IaC, services), which caps the score.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-organized into clear sections and signals a single one-level-deep reference ('MUST follow `assets/iac.md`') that resolves to a real bundle file, matching the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled shallow references.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

60%

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 names concrete actions and uses natural terms, but omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger and reads as broad general coding, leaving completeness and distinctiveness at the mid level.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause stating the concrete situations that should trigger this skill (e.g. 'Use when implementing features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code in any language or stack').

Broaden trigger terms with common variations users actually say, such as 'debug', 'code changes', 'build', or specific stack names, to reduce overlap with debugging/planning skills.

Narrow the distinctiveness by adding a scoping qualifier that separates this general-coding skill from the more specialized debugging, planning, and tech-specs skills it references.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'implement features, fix bugs, and refactor' — matching the anchor for enumerating several specific actions rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'features', 'bugs', 'refactor', and 'validation' are terms users naturally say, but coverage is narrow and lacks common variations (e.g. no 'debug', 'code changes', language names), so it is not at the level of broad natural-term coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The actions are named specifically enough to be somewhat distinct, but 'implement features, fix bugs, refactor' is broad and overlaps with related skills the body itself references (debugging, planning, tech-specs), so conflict risk remains.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

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.

Validation15 / 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
griddynamics/rosetta
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.