CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

compound-refresh

Use when docs/solutions/ learnings may be stale — after refactors, migrations, or dependency upgrades, when a retrieved learning feels outdated or contradicts a recently solved problem, when pattern docs no longer reflect current code, or when reviewing docs/solutions/ for accuracy.

36

Quality

35%

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 ./skills/compound-refresh/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

47%

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 workflow skill with excellent sequencing and clear decision frameworks, but it is severely over-long for what it communicates. The same core logic (discover → investigate → classify → act → report → commit) is restated and elaborated across multiple sections with significant redundancy, particularly around autonomous vs interactive mode distinctions. The skill would benefit greatly from compression and from providing concrete examples (sample frontmatter, sample report output) rather than lengthy prose descriptions of what those artifacts should contain.

Suggestions

Cut the content by 40-50% by eliminating redundant restatements of autonomous mode rules, consolidating the Keep/Update/Replace/Archive guidance into a single authoritative section rather than re-explaining across Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4, and removing explanations of reasoning Claude can infer (e.g., why learning docs should be reviewed before pattern docs).

Add concrete, executable examples: a sample learning file with frontmatter, a sample stale-marked frontmatter block, a sample report output, and a sample subagent task prompt — these would replace paragraphs of prose description.

Extract the detailed autonomous mode rules, subagent strategy, and commit workflow into separate bundle files referenced from the main SKILL.md, keeping the main file as a concise overview with phase summaries.

Replace the lengthy Phase 3 interaction examples with a compact decision table mapping (scope × mode × evidence clarity) to action, since the current prose repeats the same logic for focused/batch/broad scopes.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

This skill is extremely verbose at ~400+ lines. It over-explains concepts Claude can infer (e.g., why to refresh in order, what Keep/Update/Replace/Archive mean in exhaustive detail), repeats autonomous mode rules multiple times across sections, and includes extensive interaction design guidance that could be dramatically compressed. Many sections restate the same principles in slightly different contexts.

1 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides clear decision frameworks, classification tables, and specific rules for each action type, but lacks executable code examples. There are no concrete commands for file operations, no example frontmatter YAML, no example of what a stale-marked file looks like, and the 'compound' document format is referenced but never shown. The guidance is specific but not copy-paste ready.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The multi-phase workflow (Phase 0 through Phase 5) is clearly sequenced with explicit ordering rationale, validation checkpoints (evidence assessment before Replace, problem domain check before Archive), feedback loops (mark stale when uncertain, re-run compound later), and clear routing logic based on scope size and mode. The Common Mistakes table serves as an additional validation checkpoint.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references external skills (superpowers-ruby:compound) and concepts (auto memory directory, MEMORY.md) but has no bundle files to offload content to. The entire skill is a monolithic document that could benefit from splitting — e.g., autonomous mode rules, subagent prompts, and the detailed phase instructions could be separate files. The content is well-structured with headers but everything is inline.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

22%

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 is heavily imbalanced — it provides extensive 'when to use' guidance but completely omits what the skill actually does. Without any concrete actions or capabilities listed, Claude cannot understand the skill's purpose, only its trigger conditions. The description needs a fundamental rewrite to lead with specific actions before the trigger clauses.

Suggestions

Add a clear 'what it does' statement at the beginning with specific actions, e.g., 'Audits and updates docs/solutions/ and learnings to remove stale content, correct outdated patterns, and align documentation with current code.'

Restructure to lead with capabilities before the 'Use when...' clause so Claude understands the skill's purpose, not just its triggers.

Include concrete outputs or outcomes the skill produces, such as 'flags contradictions between learnings and recent solutions' or 'proposes updates to pattern docs'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lacks concrete actions. It never states what the skill actually does — there are no verbs describing specific capabilities like 'updates', 'validates', 'removes stale entries', etc. It only describes when to use it, not what it does.

1 / 3

Completeness

The description answers 'when' extensively but completely fails to answer 'what does this do'. There is no explanation of the skill's actual capabilities or actions — only trigger conditions. The 'what' is entirely missing.

1 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains some relevant trigger terms like 'refactors', 'migrations', 'dependency upgrades', 'stale', 'outdated', and 'pattern docs', which users might naturally mention. However, it's missing broader variations and the terms are somewhat niche.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The focus on staleness of docs/solutions/ and learnings after refactors gives it some distinctiveness, but without specifying what the skill actually does, it could overlap with documentation review, code review, or knowledge management skills.

2 / 3

Total

6

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (550 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Repository
lucianghinda/superpowers-ruby
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.