CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

unslopify

Use when you need focused cleanup audits, safe removals, scoped quality-risk reductions, and evidence-backed cleanup plans before touching code.

40

Quality

40%

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 ./Infrastructure/references/deferred-skill-context/agent-ops-unslopify/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%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 is a well-structured maintenance workflow skill with a clear six-phase process, strong safety gates, and explicit fail-fast behavior. Its main weaknesses are moderate redundancy across sections (fail-fast, safety requirements, anti-patterns overlap), and the discovery lanes and invocation commands could benefit from more concrete examples of expected outputs and evidence formats. The workflow clarity is the strongest dimension, providing genuine value for a complex multi-step cleanup process.

Suggestions

Consolidate redundant fail-fast and safety guidance that appears in Failure mode, Baseline validation, Anti-Patterns, and Critical Safety Requirements into a single authoritative section, with brief cross-references from other sections.

Add a concrete example of what a cleanup ledger entry looks like (e.g., a sample finding with classification, evidence, confidence, and risk fields) to make the discovery and planning phases more actionable.

Show expected output format for at least one invocation proof command (e.g., what a successful `./bin/ask skills resolve unslopify --json` response looks like) so Claude knows how to interpret pass/fail.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is reasonably structured but includes some redundancy—fail-fast behavior is stated in multiple places (Failure mode, Baseline validation, Anti-Patterns), and some sections like Gotchas and Invocation Proof feel verbose for what they convey. The philosophy section and some framing could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

The workflow phases are clearly described with concrete steps, and specific commands are provided (e.g., `./bin/ask skills resolve unslopify --json`, `rg`, `fd`). However, the commands are tool-specific without explaining what they return or how to interpret results, and the discovery lanes lack concrete examples of what evidence looks like. The decision matrix is useful but still somewhat abstract.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The six-phase workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation gates, fail-fast behavior, batch-and-verify loops, and rollback notes. The gating steps in the Invocation section and baseline validation section provide clear checkpoints with explicit stop-and-report instructions on failure. Feedback loops are well-defined for destructive operations.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references `references/contract.yaml`, `references/evals.yaml`, and `references/task-profile.json` with clear purpose descriptions, and links to related skills via `[[simplify]]` and `[[verification-before-completion]]`. However, no bundle files were provided, so these references cannot be validated. The main file itself is quite long (~180 lines) and some content (like the full invocation proof section or anti-patterns) could potentially be split out.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

17%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 vague, buzzword-heavy language that fails to communicate concrete actions or natural trigger terms. While it includes a 'Use when...' clause, the triggers themselves are abstract jargon rather than terms users would naturally use. The description would be nearly impossible to distinguish from other code quality or refactoring skills.

Suggestions

Replace abstract phrases like 'focused cleanup audits' and 'quality-risk reductions' with concrete actions such as 'identify and remove dead code, unused imports, deprecated function calls'.

Add natural trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'refactor', 'tech debt', 'dead code', 'unused variables', 'clean up codebase'.

Specify what kind of code or artifacts this skill operates on (e.g., Python files, JavaScript modules, entire repositories) to improve distinctiveness and reduce conflict risk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description uses vague, abstract language like 'focused cleanup audits', 'safe removals', 'scoped quality-risk reductions', and 'evidence-backed cleanup plans'. None of these describe concrete, specific actions — they read as buzzword-heavy abstractions without clarifying what is actually being cleaned up, removed, or audited.

1 / 3

Completeness

The description has a 'Use when...' clause which addresses the 'when' question, but the 'what' is extremely vague. The 'when' triggers are also abstract and non-specific ('focused cleanup audits', 'safe removals'), making both halves weak, though the structure is present.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The terms used ('cleanup audits', 'quality-risk reductions', 'evidence-backed cleanup plans') are not natural phrases a user would say. A user would more likely say 'refactor', 'remove dead code', 'clean up unused imports', 'tech debt', etc. The description lacks any natural user-facing keywords.

1 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is so generic that it could overlap with any code refactoring, linting, static analysis, or code review skill. Terms like 'cleanup', 'removals', and 'quality' are extremely broad and would easily conflict with many other skills.

1 / 3

Total

5

/

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.