CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

he-reinforce

Create or refresh evidence-bound Harness Engineering learning artifacts from verified solved problems. Use when a fix worked, a repeated failure should become durable knowledge, or .harness/solutions and Project Brain need maintenance.

51

Quality

55%

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-reinforce/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

35%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 heavily process-oriented and jargon-laden, reading more like an internal system specification than actionable guidance for Claude. While it demonstrates awareness of validation, safety boundaries, and progressive disclosure, the actual content is abstract and verbose, with very few concrete examples or executable instructions. The repeated deferral to folded context files for actual detail means the SKILL.md itself provides limited standalone value.

Suggestions

Replace abstract procedure steps with concrete, executable examples showing actual file paths, commands, and expected outputs for at least the primary 'capture_solved_problem' mode.

Cut the verbose Output Format field list and replace with a single concrete JSON example showing a completed reinforcement output.

Consolidate the References section into a clean table or short list with one-line descriptions instead of the current paragraph-style wall of text.

Remove or drastically shorten sections that describe meta-process Claude can infer (e.g., 'Philosophy', 'Stage Arc Boundary') and focus tokens on the specific steps and validation checks unique to this skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is extremely verbose with heavy jargon, internal system terminology, and repeated references to folded context files. Much of the content describes organizational plumbing (schema fields, handoff rules, stage arc boundaries) that could be drastically condensed. Many sections explain meta-process rather than providing actionable instruction.

1 / 3

Actionability

The procedure section provides a numbered sequence and there is one concrete command (check_bluf_structure.py), but most guidance is abstract and organizational rather than executable. The examples section gives vague scenario descriptions rather than concrete input/output pairs. Key steps like 'prove eligibility' and 'keep scope tight' lack specific executable instructions.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

There is a numbered procedure with mode selection and eligibility checks, and the validation section mentions fail-fast gates. However, validation checkpoints are described abstractly ('report every gate as pass, fail, or blocked') without concrete examples of what passing looks like. The feedback loop for failure handling exists but is vague, and many steps defer to folded context files for actual detail.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill makes extensive use of references to external files (hot-path-folded-context.md, contract.yaml, evals.yaml, etc.) which is good progressive disclosure in principle. However, no bundle files were provided to verify these references exist, the references section is itself a wall of text, and the repeated 'See references/hot-path-folded-context.md for folded X detail' pattern across nearly every section feels mechanical rather than well-organized. The main body still contains too much inline detail that could be offloaded.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

75%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.

The description has strong completeness with explicit 'Use when' triggers and is highly distinctive due to its domain-specific focus. However, it could benefit from more concrete action verbs describing what the skill actually does (e.g., 'writes solution files', 'updates indexes') and more natural trigger terms that users might actually say when they need this skill.

Suggestions

Add more concrete actions beyond 'create or refresh' — e.g., 'writes solution markdown files, updates solution indexes, links evidence to Project Brain entries'

Include more natural trigger phrases users might say, such as 'document this fix', 'save this solution', 'update knowledge base', or 'record what we learned'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a domain ('Harness Engineering learning artifacts') and some actions ('create or refresh'), but the concrete actions are not comprehensively listed. Terms like 'evidence-bound' and 'durable knowledge' are somewhat abstract rather than describing specific operations.

2 / 3

Completeness

The description clearly answers both 'what' (create or refresh evidence-bound learning artifacts from verified solved problems) and 'when' (when a fix worked, when a repeated failure should become durable knowledge, or when .harness/solutions and Project Brain need maintenance). The 'Use when' clause is explicit with multiple trigger conditions.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant keywords like '.harness/solutions', 'Project Brain', 'fix worked', 'repeated failure', and 'learning artifacts', but these are fairly domain-specific jargon. A user might naturally say 'save this fix' or 'document this solution' but those natural phrasings are missing. The triggers present are reasonable but not comprehensive.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is highly specific to a particular system ('Harness Engineering', '.harness/solutions', 'Project Brain') and a particular workflow (converting solved problems into learning artifacts). This is unlikely to conflict with other skills due to its narrow, well-defined niche.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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.