CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

he-reconcile

Analyze repo, tracker, PR, validation, session, and .harness evidence. Use when multi-stage Harness Engineering work needs safe resume routing.

40

Quality

37%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

The risk profile of this skill

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./Plugins/harness-engineering/skills/he-reconcile/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%Scale 1-3

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 complex orchestration/routing skill for a multi-stage engineering workflow. It demonstrates good structural intent with clear sections for when to use/not use, procedure, validation, safety, and handoff routing. However, it suffers from abstract, jargon-heavy language without concrete executable examples, truncated procedures that depend on unavailable bundle files, and a cluttered references section that makes navigation difficult.

Suggestions

Add a concrete structured output example showing the actual JSON schema with realistic field values (schema_version, mode, stage_map, etc.) so Claude knows exactly what to produce.

Replace the abstract procedure steps with specific commands or tool invocations — e.g., show how to read .harness/session-evidence/latest.md, how to compare it against a plan file, and what the decision logic looks like in practice.

Consolidate the scattered 'See references/hot-path-folded-context.md' callouts into a single 'Folded Detail' section or inline the critical path content, since the bundle files are not available to verify these references.

Organize the References section into categorized groups (e.g., 'Core contracts', 'Situational references', 'Shared HE references') with one-line descriptions of when each is needed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is moderately efficient but includes significant jargon-heavy prose that could be tightened. Phrases like 'Coordinate state, not ceremony' and repeated references to folded context files add overhead. Several sections (Safety Boundaries, Failure Handling) repeat concepts that could be consolidated, and the dense enumeration of output fields and reference paths is verbose without being maximally useful.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides structured procedural steps and clear routing rules, but lacks any concrete executable code, commands, or copy-paste-ready examples. The procedure is described at a high conceptual level ('Reconstruct lifecycle state from live repo, tracker, PR...') without showing exactly how to do it. The examples section describes scenarios in prose rather than showing actual inputs/outputs or structured output examples.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The procedure section has numbered steps and the validation section mentions pass/fail/blocked gates, which is good. However, the workflow lacks explicit validation checkpoints between steps, and the procedure steps are truncated with 'See references/hot-path-folded-context.md' without the bundle file being available. The feedback loop for error recovery is mentioned in Failure Handling but not integrated into the procedure sequence itself.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references multiple external files (references/contract.yaml, references/evals.yaml, references/hot-path-folded-context.md, several ../../references/ paths) which shows intent for progressive disclosure. However, no bundle files are provided to verify these exist, several references are deeply nested (../../references/), and the References section itself is a dense wall of links without clear categorization of when each is needed. The repeated 'See references/hot-path-folded-context.md for folded X detail' pattern across multiple sections is reasonable but the overall reference organization is cluttered.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

25%Scale 1-3

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 suffers from heavy use of domain-specific jargon that would be opaque to most users and even to Claude when selecting among skills. While it attempts the right structure with a 'Use when' clause, the actual content is too abstract to convey what the skill does or when it should be triggered. The concrete actions performed are never specified.

Suggestions

Replace abstract language like 'analyze evidence' and 'safe resume routing' with concrete actions (e.g., 'Reads .harness session files to determine last completed stage, validates checkpoint integrity, and routes to the correct resume point').

Add natural trigger terms that users would actually say, such as 'resume interrupted work', 'continue where I left off', 'harness checkpoint', or 'restart pipeline'.

Clarify the 'Use when' clause with specific, understandable scenarios (e.g., 'Use when a multi-stage harness workflow was interrupted and needs to be safely resumed from the last valid checkpoint').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description uses vague, abstract language like 'analyze evidence' and 'safe resume routing' without listing concrete actions. It names types of evidence (repo, tracker, PR, validation, session, .harness) but doesn't explain what specific operations are performed on them.

1 / 3

Completeness

It has a 'Use when' clause addressing the 'when' question, and attempts to answer 'what' with 'Analyze... evidence.' However, the 'what' is vague (what does 'analyze' mean concretely?) and the 'when' is unclear ('multi-stage Harness Engineering work needs safe resume routing' is opaque jargon).

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The terms used are highly specialized jargon ('Harness Engineering', 'safe resume routing', '.harness evidence') that users would not naturally say. Terms like 'repo' and 'PR' are common but too generic to serve as useful triggers for this specific skill.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The mention of 'Harness Engineering' and '.harness' files creates some distinctiveness, but terms like 'repo', 'PR', 'tracker', and 'validation' are very generic and could overlap with many other development-related skills.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

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.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

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.