CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

pragmatic-review

Interactive pragmatic code review focusing on YAGNI and KISS principles. Use when the user asks for a code review, wants to check for over-engineering, or wants a YAGNI/KISS-focused review of changes.

67

Quality

80%

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 ./.agents/skills/pragmatic-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

A well-sequenced, highly actionable review skill with explicit validation via its self-review pass and concrete git commands plus a code example. Its main weaknesses are mild verbosity in the philosophy section and a fully monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure despite its length.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Core Philosophy' section: drop the explanatory maxims Claude already knows (e.g., the debugging quote, the '4x cost' breakdown) and keep only the operational reminders, or move philosophy into a separate reference file.

Introduce progressive disclosure by moving the large pattern catalogs (YAGNI/KISS detection patterns, security/performance checks) and the output templates into one-level-deep reference files (e.g., PATTERNS.md, TEMPLATES.md) linked from the overview, keeping SKILL.md a lean entry point.

Tighten the duplicated 'ALWAYS Flag' / 'DON'T Flag' lists in Step 5 against the Step 2 detection patterns to avoid restating the same criteria twice.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient operational checklists (detection patterns, prefixes, templates) but the 'Core Philosophy' section restates YAGNI/KISS concepts and maxims ('Debugging is twice as hard as writing...') that Claude already knows. It is tighter than the padded score-1 example but still carries explanation that could be trimmed.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete executable git commands ('git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD', fallback main/master/develop), a real TypeScript catch-log-exit code example with a corrected version, a severity-prefix table, and exact output templates. Per the rubric's instruction-skill note, the absence of more code is not penalized because the guidance is concrete and copy-paste ready.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps are explicitly sequenced (Step 1 scope through Step 6 summary), and Step 3.5 'Self-Review Pass' is an explicit validation checkpoint with a feedback loop ('Remove or downgrade any issues that fail these checks'). This matches the score-3 anchor with checkpoints and error-recovery guidance.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files (references/scripts/assets) exist and the entire ~340-line skill is a single inline document. Sections are well-organized, but large catalogs (analysis framework, output templates) that could be split into one-level-deep reference files remain inline, fitting the score-2 anchor rather than the score-3 'content appropriately split' anchor.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

82%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, well-formed description that pairs a clear capability statement with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause and natural user-facing keywords. Its only soft spots are a slightly broad 'code review' trigger that could overlap sibling skills and an action list that is concrete but not comprehensive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain ('code review') and a couple of actions ('check for over-engineering', 'YAGNI/KISS-focused review'), but does not enumerate multiple distinct concrete actions the way the score-3 anchor does. It is more concrete than the vague score-1 anchor but stops short of a comprehensive action list.

2 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does ('Interactive pragmatic code review focusing on YAGNI and KISS principles') and follows with an explicit 'Use when the user asks for a code review...' trigger clause, satisfying both what and when. This matches the score-3 anchor exactly.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like 'asks for a code review' and 'wants to check for over-engineering' are natural terms users would actually say, giving good trigger coverage. It is well above the score-2 'Works with PDF files' single-keyword anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The YAGNI/KISS and over-engineering angle is a distinct niche, but the trigger 'the user asks for a code review' is broad and would overlap with general code-review skills. It is more specific than the score-1 'Helps with code and documents' but not as unambiguous as the score-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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
heyitsnoah/claudesidian
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.