CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

coding

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

1.05x
Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

80%

1.05x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

53%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 well-organized with tagged sections, a real asset reference for IaC details, and several concrete constraints, but it reads as a principles list rather than an executable workflow — no sequenced implementation steps, no feedback loops, and vague mandates mixed in with the concrete ones. It sits near the middle of the scale across all dimensions.

Suggestions

Restructure the core workflow as an ordered sequence (search existing code → implement → validate in dependency order → review git changes) with explicit validate-then-fix-then-revalidate checkpoints.

Make key directives executable: specify how to verify multi-environment configuration and what "check logs and running services" concretely means, or move detail to a reference file.

Trim filler mandates ("Zero tolerance: no cheating, no pre-existing excuses") and tighten the run-on background-terminal bullet into concrete script steps or a scripts/ file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly terse bullet lists that assume competence, but it includes run-on mandates (the background-terminal script bullet), vague filler ("Zero tolerance: no cheating, no pre-existing excuses"), and a when-to-use section that merely repeats the description.

3 / 5

Actionability

Some genuinely concrete guidance exists (validation order databases → APIs → Web → Mobile, the CONTEXT.md file list, the 300 LOC limit, 5-15 second timeouts, named MCPs), but most directives are high-level with no commands or code and unclear referents like "Check logs and running services locally".

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A dependency-ordered validation sequence and a validation checklist are present, but there is no ordered implementation workflow with embedded checkpoints, and validation lacks a fix → re-validate feedback loop.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a reasonable overview with a clearly signaled, real one-level-deep asset reference (`assets/iac.md`, 235 lines), though it uses XML-style tags instead of markdown headers and the IaC material could be more discoverable with a dedicated resources section.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

57%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 states concrete coding actions in natural language but has no explicit "when to use" trigger and would fire on almost any coding task, risking conflicts with the related skills it references. It sits just above the midpoint: decent specificity and keywords, weak completeness and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when implementing features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code, including DevOps, IaC, and pipeline work."

Differentiate from adjacent skills by scoping the trigger away from pure debugging or planning tasks that the referenced `debugging` and `planning` skills should handle.

Include common user phrasings like "write code", "build", or "code changes" to round out trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"To implement features, fix bugs, and refactor" names the domain plus 2-3 concrete actions, but coverage is incomplete (DevOps/IaC/pipelines from the body are absent) and "KISS/SOLID/DRY" are principle labels rather than actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps this dimension at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"implement features", "fix bugs", and "refactor" are natural phrases users say, but common variations like "write code", "build", or "debug" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is coding-specific, but "fix bugs" overlaps with a referenced debugging skill and the scope would trigger for nearly any coding request, so overlap with similar skills remains.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

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

griddynamics/rosetta

Path

instructions/r2/core/skills/coding/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.