code-documentation-analyzer
Code Documentation Analyzer - Auto-activating skill for Technical Documentation. Triggers on: code documentation analyzer, code documentation analyzer Part of the Technical Documentation skill category.
32
Quality
0%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
88%
1.00xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/17-technical-docs/code-documentation-analyzer/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is essentially a placeholder with no substantive content. It provides only a skill name and category without describing any capabilities, use cases, or natural trigger terms. The repeated trigger term 'code documentation analyzer' suggests auto-generated content rather than thoughtful skill design.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Analyzes code to generate docstrings, extracts function signatures, identifies undocumented methods, creates API reference documentation'
Include a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'document this code', 'add docstrings', 'generate API docs', 'explain this function', 'README'
Clarify the scope to distinguish from other documentation skills - specify programming languages supported, documentation formats generated (JSDoc, Sphinx, etc.), or specific use cases like 'legacy code documentation'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Code Documentation Analyzer' is just a name, and 'Technical Documentation' is an abstract category. There are no verbs describing what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' (no actions described) and 'when should Claude use it' (no explicit use cases or triggers beyond the skill name itself). Both components are missing. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only trigger terms listed are 'code documentation analyzer' repeated twice, which is not a natural phrase users would say. Missing common terms like 'docstrings', 'API docs', 'comments', 'README', or 'document my code'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Technical Documentation' is extremely generic and could overlap with many documentation-related skills. There's nothing distinguishing this from general documentation, API documentation, or code commenting skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a placeholder template with no actual content. It describes capabilities in abstract terms without providing any concrete guidance, code examples, or actionable instructions for code documentation analysis. The entire content could be replaced with a single sentence: 'This skill helps with code documentation' without losing any information.
Suggestions
Add concrete examples of code documentation analysis, such as extracting docstrings, generating API documentation, or analyzing code coverage of documentation
Include executable code snippets showing how to use documentation tools (e.g., Sphinx, JSDoc, pydoc) with specific commands and configurations
Define a clear workflow for analyzing code documentation: identify undocumented code -> generate documentation templates -> validate completeness
Replace generic capability claims with specific techniques and patterns for documentation analysis (e.g., 'Check for missing parameter descriptions in function docstrings')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is padded with generic boilerplate that explains nothing specific. Phrases like 'provides automated assistance' and 'follows industry best practices' are meaningless filler that waste tokens without adding value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code, commands, or specific guidance is provided. The skill describes what it does in abstract terms ('provides step-by-step guidance') but never actually provides any guidance, examples, or executable instructions. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow, steps, or process is defined. The content claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but contains zero actual steps. There are no validation checkpoints or sequences of any kind. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a flat, uninformative structure with no references to detailed materials, no links to examples or advanced content, and no meaningful organization beyond generic section headers. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
0c08951
- 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.