CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

daily-oss

Batch processing issues, PRs, discussions, implementations, etc.

44

Quality

44%

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/daily-oss/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 a well-routed orchestrator that clearly delegates per-task detail to real asset files with one-level-deep references. Its weaknesses are attitudinal padding over concrete steps and the absence of explicit validation checkpoints in the main batch workflow.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validate->fix->retry checkpoint sequence in the main body for batch review/implementation runs, rather than relying on asset files to imply it.

Trim ALL-CAPS emphasis and repeated 'ask advisor, then user' phrasing into a single concise escalation rule.

Convert attitudinal directives ('always dig deeper', 'never mechanically') into concrete, checkable actions so the guidance is executable rather than motivational.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly terse imperative bullets, but ALL-CAPS shouting, repeated 'ask advisor, then user' phrasing, and the lengthy 'Lessons learned' entries with root-cause prose could be tightened, fitting the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete routing rules ('MUST APPLY SKILL FILE assets/issues-review.md'), a dependency ordering, and delegation instructions are actionable, but much of the body is attitudinal ('always dig deeper', 'never mechanically') without specific executable steps, matching the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Routing section gives a clear priority order and delegates per-task flows to asset files, but the main body lacks explicit validate->fix->retry checkpoints; since this is a batch operation skill, the rubric caps workflow clarity at 3 when validation is missing from the main flow.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body cleanly signals one-level-deep references to real bundle files (assets/issues-review.md, issues-implementation.md, prs-review.md, discussions-review.md) with just-in-time loading guidance, matching the 'good structure; references mostly clear' anchor; the long inline 'Lessons learned' log is a minor organization gap keeping it below 5.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

36%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 names relevant OSS-maintenance domains but relies on a single generic verb and a vague 'etc.', and it omits any 'Use when...' trigger guidance. It is recognizable but under-specified on both concrete actions and when to invoke it.

Suggestions

Replace 'Batch processing ... etc.' with concrete actions, e.g. 'Triages, reviews, and implements GitHub issues, PRs, and discussions for an open-source repository.'

Add an explicit trigger clause: 'Use when coordinating batch review or implementation of issues, PRs, or discussions in an OSS repo.'

Drop the trailing 'etc.' and list the specific task types so the description is distinct from generic review/triage skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The phrase 'Batch processing issues, PRs, discussions, implementations, etc.' names several domains but uses a single generic action verb ('Batch processing') and trails off with 'etc.', matching the anchor that names the domain with minimal/generic actions rather than listing concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

It gives a vague 'what' (generic 'batch processing' plus 'etc.') and entirely omits any 'when'/Use-when trigger clause, matching the anchor for a vague what with no when; the missing 'Use when...' guidance also caps completeness per the rubric.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'issues, PRs, discussions, implementations' are natural terms users would say, but common variations/synonyms are missing and the vague 'etc.' adds no triggers, fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of issues/PRs/discussions/implementations points to a fairly specific OSS-maintenance niche, but 'batch processing ... etc.' is broad enough to overlap with other review/triage skills, fitting the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

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.