CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

new-source

Investigate and implement support for a new waste-collection provider in hacs_waste_collection_schedule. Use when a contributor wants a council, municipality, or provider added, including shared-platform and ICS options.

69

Quality

84%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%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.

A tight, well-structured orchestrator skill: lean prose, a clearly sequenced four-phase workflow, and concrete artifacts like exact config syntax and a PR-title pattern. The residual gap is that verification steps name what must run (lint, structural tests, live TEST_CASES) without spelling out the commands or an explicit fix-and-retry loop.

Suggestions

Turn the verification requirements into an explicit feedback loop (e.g., 'If lint or tests fail: fix, re-run, and only present the Implementation Report when green') to convert stated checks into checkpoints.

Inline the one or two most common lint/test commands (or a one-line example invocation) instead of fully delegating to AGENTS.md, so the skill remains actionable even if that file is not already in context.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~30-line body is lean and directive with zero padding — every line is an instruction, a specific artifact name, or a guardrail ("Never request or expose the user's home address", "Never run `update_docu_links.py`"), and nothing explains concepts Claude already knows.

5 / 5

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance with concrete specifics — named agents to spawn, exact config syntax (`SOURCE_CODEOWNERS = ["@handle"]`, `codeowners:` for ICS YAML), and a PR-title pattern (`Add source: <Provider Name> (<module>)`) — but the actual lint/test commands are delegated to `AGENTS.md` rather than stated, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-phase sequence (Gather inputs → Investigate → Implement → Prepare submission) with most checkpoints present — "resolve test failures before submission", "lint every changed Python file", "Run the required lint and tests ... for every changed file" — but validation is stated as a requirement rather than an explicit validate → fix → re-run loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is organized into four well-labeled sections; per the rubric's simple-skill exception, well-organized sections alone merit the top score.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

82%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 strong description with an explicit, concrete 'Use when' clause and a highly distinctive niche. The main weakness is specificity: 'investigate and implement' are broad strokes rather than several named concrete actions, and a few natural trigger synonyms (waste collection, bin, trash) are absent.

Suggestions

Enumerate 1-2 more concrete actions in the description (e.g., 'investigate provider APIs or ICS feeds, implement the source module, and prepare the upstream PR') to lift specificity from broad verbs to concrete capability claims.

Add natural trigger synonyms such as 'waste collection schedule', 'bin collection', or 'trash pickup' to the 'Use when' clause so users phrasing the need colloquially still match.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain plus two broad actions — "Investigate and implement support for a new waste-collection provider" — with scope detail ("shared-platform and ICS options"), but does not enumerate the concrete sub-actions involved, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the 'several specific actions' anchor above.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: the what ("Investigate and implement support for a new waste-collection provider in hacs_waste_collection_schedule") and the when ("Use when a contributor wants a council, municipality, or provider added, including shared-platform and ICS options") with concrete trigger scenarios, exceeding the anchor-4 example where the 'when' is generic.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"council, municipality, or provider added" are natural phrases a contributor would actually say, giving good keyword coverage, though common synonyms like "waste collection", "bin", or "trash schedule" are missing — a few natural terms short of comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Pins a clear niche to a single named repository ("hacs_waste_collection_schedule") with distinct triggers around adding councils/municipalities/providers, so it is unlikely to fire for any unrelated skill.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
mampfes/hacs_waste_collection_schedule
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.