CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

he-improve

Improve existing Harness Engineering skills, references, contracts, and evals from concrete evidence such as failed evals, repeated review findings, usage traces, or documented regressions. Use when a bounded hardening pass is required; do not use for speculative redesign.

Quality

68%

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 ./Plugins/harness-engineering/skills/he-improve/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%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 has a sensible structure, strong validation semantics, and appropriate folding of detail into a real reference file, but pervasive mid-sentence truncations, a duplicated paragraph, broken step numbering, and mostly unresolvable reference paths undermine its actionability and navigation. It reads as a compressed artifact whose compression was done mechanically rather than carefully.

Suggestions

Repair the truncated sentences: complete the cut-off clauses in Philosophy ('Higher-priority instructions, command boundaries, and...'), When Not to Use, and Validation, or restructure them as intentional whole-sentence pointers to references/hot-path-folded-context.md instead of mid-sentence dangling fragments.

Fix the structural defects: renumber the Procedure so the second '4.' step ('Translate external material into invariants...') becomes '5.', and delete the duplicated context-disposition paragraph and dangling deferred-context-index pointer at the end of the References section.

Make the validation gates executable: give the actual commands (or a pointer to where they are defined in references/contract.yaml) for 'strict audit', 'OpenClaw', the format lints, and 'Plugin Eval', and resolve or prune the reference paths that do not exist in the bundle.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean per sentence and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of known concepts), but it contains clear tightening targets: a duplicated context-disposition paragraph at the end ('Apply the context-disposition policy: move important still-valid context...' appears twice), a dangling pointer line ('../../references/deferred-context-index.md for folded/discarded context'), and five scattered '- See references/hot-path-folded-context.md' bullets. This fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than anchor 4, and is nowhere near the padding of anchor 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete specifics exist (status enum 'pass|fail|blocked', named output sections, named validation tools like 'strict audit, OpenClaw, OpenAI format lint, progressive disclosure lint, Plugin Eval', explicit handoff targets), but no executable commands are given and key details are truncated mid-sentence ('For non-trivial generated improvement artifacts, run or block' ends with no object). This lands between anchors 3 and 4: guidance is specific but incomplete rather than mostly executable.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A sequenced procedure and a genuine feedback loop are present ('stop at the first failed gate, fix or block it, then rerun before broader checks'), but the workflow has real gaps: the Procedure numbers two steps as '4.', and sentences in Philosophy, When Not to Use, and Validation are cut off mid-clause and replaced by folded-context pointers, leaving checkpoint criteria undefined. These gaps match anchor 3 ('sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit') better than anchor 4.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clear, the folded detail genuinely lives one level deep in the real file references/hot-path-folded-context.md, and a dedicated References section exists. However, 7 of the 11 listed references ('../../references/stage-arc-boundary-contract.md', '../../references/subagent-call-contract.md', '../../references/bluf-review-contract.md', '../../references/visual-reference-contract.md', '../../references/deferred-context-index.md', 'Plugins/harness-engineering/references/skill-improvement-loop.md', 'Plugins/harness-engineering/references/agent-native-compression-contract.md') do not resolve within the bundle, references/task-profile.json is never referenced from the body, and the folded-context pointers are buried mid-sentence rather than clearly signaled. That is more than 'minor organization gaps' (anchor 4) but well above anchor 2.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

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 states what it does, when to use it, and when not to, with concrete evidence-type keywords and good third-person voice. Its main weakness is relying on a single generic action verb ('improve') and an internal-jargon when-clause ('bounded hardening pass') rather than natural trigger phrases.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Harness Engineering skills, references, contracts, and evals') and one action ('Improve... from concrete evidence') with a concrete enumeration of evidence sources ('failed evals, repeated review findings, usage traces, or documented regressions'), but offers only a single action verb rather than several distinct concrete actions. It exceeds anchor 2 (the evidence-type enumeration is concrete, not generic) but falls short of anchor 4's 'lists several specific actions'.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both what ('Improve existing Harness Engineering skills, references, contracts, and evals from concrete evidence') and an explicit when ('Use when a bounded hardening pass is required') are present, plus a negative boundary ('do not use for speculative redesign'). It is not a 5 because 'bounded hardening pass' is internal jargon rather than concrete natural user trigger phrases, but the when clause is explicit, ruling out 3.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage including natural terms users would say in this domain: 'improve', 'failed evals', 'review findings', 'regressions', 'skills'. A few natural variations and synonyms ('fix', 'update', 'refine', 'harden') are missing, keeping it below anchor 5, while coverage is clearly above anchor 3's 'some relevant keywords'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill carves a clear niche (evidence-driven hardening of existing surfaces) with an explicit negative trigger ('do not use for speculative redesign') that separates it from greenfield/refactor siblings. Minor overlap risk remains with closely related skills such as bug repair ('he-fix-bugs') and the broad object list ('skills, references, contracts, and evals'), keeping it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

jscraik/Agent-Skills

Path

Plugins/harness-engineering/skills/he-improve/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.