CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

he-fix-bugs

Restore broken behavior by reproducing failures, identifying root cause, and delivering verified fixes. Use when the user needs regression debugging, incident triage, or bug repair from tracker or direct reports.

59

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./Plugins/harness-engineering/fixtures/budget-archive/2026-04-21/deferred-store/skills/team_automation/he-fix-bugs/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%

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

This is a well-structured skill with strong workflow clarity and excellent progressive disclosure design. Its main weakness is the lack of concrete, executable examples—the procedure describes what to do conceptually but doesn't provide templates, commands, or sample outputs that would make it immediately actionable. There is also moderate redundancy across sections that could be tightened.

Suggestions

Add a concrete example showing a complete diagnosis flow: sample symptom input → reproduction step → root-cause output format → Linear issue payload template.

Provide a concrete example of structured output with `schema_version: 1` since it's mentioned in Outputs but never illustrated.

Consolidate the 'Anti-patterns' section into 'Constraints' since they largely restate the same prohibitions, reducing token overhead.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is reasonably structured but includes some redundancy (e.g., the 'Full Context' section repeats 'Read when' clauses that could be consolidated, and the Subagent Routing section partially duplicates references already listed). Some sections like 'Philosophy' and 'Anti-patterns' overlap with constraints and procedure steps. However, it avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows.

2 / 3

Actionability

The procedure provides a clear sequence of steps and the constraints are specific, but there are no concrete code examples, commands, or copy-paste-ready templates (e.g., no example Linear issue payload, no example log grep command, no example test structure). The 'Examples' section only shows user prompts without corresponding expected outputs or actions Claude should take.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The procedure is well-sequenced with clear gates: parse intake → QA intake if needed → context check → evidence collection → reproduce → trace → hypothesize → present diagnosis → remediate. The Validation section provides explicit checkpoints including 'fail fast: stop at first failed gate.' The workflow handles branching (diagnosis-only vs diagnose-and-fix, QA intake mode) and blocked states clearly.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is explicitly designed as a 'Progressive Disclosure Entry' with a concise overview and well-organized references to detailed materials. The 'Full Context' section provides clearly signaled one-level-deep references with 'Read when' conditions explaining when each reference should be loaded. References are organized by purpose (canonical contract, evals, domain routing, QA intake, runtime evidence, subagent routing).

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 follows a solid structure with both 'what' and 'when' clauses clearly stated, which is its strongest aspect. However, the specificity of actions could be improved with more concrete technical operations, and the trigger terms could better cover the natural language users would employ when reporting bugs or requesting fixes.

Suggestions

Add more natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'fix bug', 'error', 'crash', 'failing test', 'broken feature', 'stack trace', or 'exception'.

Increase specificity by listing concrete debugging actions like 'analyze error logs, write reproduction tests, bisect commits, apply and verify patches'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (debugging/bug fixing) and describes a process ('reproducing failures, identifying root cause, delivering verified fixes'), but the actions are somewhat general process steps rather than multiple specific concrete actions like 'analyze stack traces, bisect commits, write regression tests'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' ('Restore broken behavior by reproducing failures, identifying root cause, and delivering verified fixes') and 'when' ('Use when the user needs regression debugging, incident triage, or bug repair from tracker or direct reports') with explicit trigger guidance.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant terms like 'regression debugging', 'incident triage', 'bug repair', 'tracker', but misses many natural user phrases like 'fix bug', 'broken', 'error', 'crash', 'failing test', 'issue', 'defect'. The terms lean slightly technical and formal.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a niche around bug fixing and incident triage, but terms like 'broken behavior' and 'bug repair' could overlap with general coding assistance or code review skills. The mention of 'tracker' and 'incident triage' adds some distinctiveness but the scope is still fairly broad.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
jscraik/Agent-Skills
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.