CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

collect-github-stats

Collect GitHub repo health/usage stats into merged JSON.

56

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/collect-github-stats/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 concise, well-structured, and gives an executable command with clear defaults and critical guardrails. Its main gap is workflow validation: for a batch operation against irreplaceable data, verification is delegated to the script rather than surfaced as an explicit checkpoint.

Suggestions

Add an explicit post-run verification step (e.g. 'After the run, confirm docs/github-stats.json has today's entry and was append-merged, not overwritten') to lift workflow clarity past the batch-operation cap of 3.

Include one worked example invocation with concrete values to move actionability from 4 to 5.

Trim the 'Lessons learned' template boilerplate or move it behind a reference so the core run instructions stay token-lean.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean (~37 lines), assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; the CRITICAL 'why' clauses (14-day rolling window) earn their place. Not 5 because the 'Lessons learned' template block and a few emphatic restatements could still be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides a copy-paste-ready command with all flags, defaults, and the run-from-repo-root constraint spelled out. Fits 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'; not 5 because there is no worked example invocation with concrete values covering a common case.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a batch operation over a destructive-adjacent target (append-merge into irreplaceable traffic history), and validation is delegated to the script ('FAILS LOUD with fix steps') rather than given as an explicit post-run verification checkpoint in the body. Per the rubric, missing explicit validation for batch/destructive operations caps workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Run, CRITICAL, Rules, Lessons learned) and a single one-level-deep, clearly signaled script reference (scripts/collect_stats.py) that exists on disk. Matches the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure at 5.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 a clear, specific purpose but omits any 'Use when…' trigger guidance, capping completeness. It is distinct enough to avoid most conflicts yet lacks the natural trigger terms and synonyms that would aid discovery.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when…' clause naming the trigger situations (e.g. 'Use when collecting or refreshing GitHub repo health/usage stats, or when the user asks for repo traffic, stars, forks, or cloner trends').

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users say — 'GitHub stats', 'repo traffic', 'stars/forks', 'cloners', '.json history'.

Optionally enumerate the concrete stats collected (traffic/views/clones, stars, forks, contributors) to lift specificity toward 4-5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('GitHub repo health/usage stats') and two concrete actions ('Collect', 'merged JSON'), but coverage is not comprehensive — no enumeration of which stats are gathered. Matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; below 4 which requires several specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (collect GitHub stats into merged JSON) but no 'Use when…' clause or equivalent trigger guidance — the 'when' is absent. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when…' caps completeness at 3; it cannot reach 4.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms 'GitHub repo', 'health/usage stats', and 'merged JSON' are reasonably natural, but common variations users say (stars, forks, traffic, cloners, .json) are missing. Fits 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'; not 4 because coverage is narrow rather than 'a few natural terms missing'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Collect GitHub repo health/usage stats into merged JSON' carves a clear niche unlikely to clash with unrelated skills, with only minor overlap risk against other GitHub-oriented skills. Fits 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'; not 5 because the missing explicit trigger phrase keeps it from 'clear niche with distinct triggers'.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

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.