CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

comprehensive-analysis

Deep-dive 7-day analysis across all data sources for weekly reviews, board prep, and strategic planning

Quality

72%

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 ./.claude/skills/comprehensive-analysis/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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.

A well-structured orchestration skill with unusually concrete agent prompts, executable commands, and a clear phased workflow with error handling. Its weaknesses are duplicated trigger sections, dangling references to a daily-brief skill file not present in the bundle, and a monolithic single-file layout with no supporting bundle structure.

Suggestions

Consolidate the duplicated trigger guidance: merge the 'When to Invoke' section with the 'Use this when' list in Purpose into a single section, and either cut or shrink the Voice & Tone commentary.

Inline the essential cross-reference patterns from daily-brief (the '23 cross-reference patterns' and Phase 3.7/Phase 4 publishing patterns) or add them as a clearly-signaled bundle file, so the skill does not depend on an absent sibling document.

Add explicit per-agent fallback checkpoints (what to do when an MCP source is unavailable or an agent returns empty data) so the degradation path is as concrete as the happy path.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly dense, useful instruction, but trigger guidance is duplicated between the 'When to Invoke' section and the 'Use this when' list in Purpose, and the 'Voice & Tone' section adds soft commentary. It could be meaningfully tightened without losing clarity; it is not 2 because there is no concept-teaching padding, and not 4 because the duplication is a real inefficiency.

3 / 5

Actionability

Highly concrete guidance: exact 'gh pr list' commands with --json fields, HogQL queries, named MCP tools, and specified analysis outputs per agent. It is not 5 because [CUSTOMIZE:] placeholders require filling before execution and several steps delegate to 'same pattern as daily brief Phase 3.7/Phase 4', which is not included, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear three-phase sequence (parallel collection, deep synthesis, output/distribution) with conditional agent-spawn rules, an explicit Error Handling section, and context-overflow protection. It is not 5 because some checkpoints are implicit (e.g., what to do when an agent returns no data) and completion verification between phases is not spelled out.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent), yet the body points to 'daily-brief.md' ('see daily-brief.md', 'same pattern as daily brief Phase 3.7') and '00-inbox/MY-PROFILE.md' without clear signaling of where these live. The single ~350-line file with inline agent prompt blocks is workable but could be better organized; this sits between minimal structure and good structure.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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.

A solid description that clearly communicates purpose and triggering use contexts with natural keywords. Its main gaps are a generic action verb ('analysis') with no named concrete actions or data sources, and trigger guidance that stops just short of explicit 'Use when...' phrasing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Deep-dive 7-day analysis across all data sources') and concrete use contexts ('weekly reviews, board prep, and strategic planning'), but the action itself ('analysis') is generic and no specific actions or data sources are named. This matches the anchor for naming the domain with 1-2 concrete elements but not comprehensive coverage; it is not 4 because no specific concrete actions are listed.

3 / 5

Completeness

It answers both 'what' ('Deep-dive 7-day analysis across all data sources') and 'when' via explicit purpose contexts ('for weekly reviews, board prep, and strategic planning'). It is not 5 because the 'when' lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger phrasing and could be more specific (e.g., user phrases or time-period triggers).

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'weekly reviews', 'board prep', 'strategic planning', and 'deep-dive' are natural phrases a user would plausibly say, giving good keyword coverage. It is not 5 because common variations like 'retro', 'comprehensive review', 'monthly/quarterly health check', or source-specific terms are absent from the description.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The weekly/deep-dive framing carves a clear niche distinct from a daily brief, so it is mostly distinguishable. It is not 5 because 'analysis across all data sources' could still overlap with closely related reporting/intelligence skills in the same family.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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

huytieu/COG-second-brain

Path

.claude/skills/comprehensive-analysis/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.