ark-issues
tessl i github:mckinsey/agents-at-scale-ark --skill ark-issuesSearch, create, and manage GitHub issues for the Ark project. Use when you need to find existing issues, create new ones, or update issue status.
Validation
88%| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
Total | 14 / 16 Passed | |
Implementation
65%This skill provides highly actionable, executable guidance for GitHub issue management with comprehensive command examples. However, it suffers from redundancy (CVE search examples appear 4+ times) and could be more concise. The workflows lack explicit validation steps, which is important for batch operations and automated agent usage.
Suggestions
Consolidate duplicate examples - the CVE search command appears in 'Searching Issues', 'Workflow 1', 'Integration with Security Workflow', and 'Common Patterns'. Keep one canonical example and reference it.
Add explicit validation after issue creation/update operations, e.g., 'Verify: gh issue view $ISSUE_NUM --json state to confirm creation'
Move the detailed security issue template to a separate TEMPLATES.md file and reference it, reducing the main skill length
Add error handling to the batch operations section - the for loop should check if each issue was created successfully before continuing
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some redundancy - the same commands appear multiple times (e.g., CVE search appears in multiple sections), and some explanations like 'Use the gh CLI tool for all issue operations' are unnecessary. The content could be tightened by consolidating duplicate examples. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Excellent actionability with fully executable, copy-paste ready bash commands throughout. Every operation has concrete examples with actual flags, repo names, and realistic values. The JSON parsing examples and bash scripting patterns are particularly useful. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are listed but lack explicit validation checkpoints. For example, the 'Create Security Issue for Tracking' workflow doesn't verify the issue was created successfully. The integration workflow shows a good pattern but doesn't handle error cases inline. Missing feedback loops for batch operations. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is reasonably organized with clear section headers, but it's a monolithic document that could benefit from splitting. The 'Common Patterns' and 'Integration with Security Workflow' sections repeat earlier content. No references to external files for detailed templates or advanced usage. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Activation
75%This is a functional description that covers the basics well, with clear 'what' and 'when' clauses and good project-specific scoping. However, it could be strengthened by listing more specific management actions beyond the vague 'manage' and including more natural trigger terms users might use when discussing issues.
Suggestions
Replace 'manage' with specific actions like 'close, assign, label, or comment on GitHub issues'
Add common trigger term variations like 'bug report', 'feature request', 'ticket', or 'open/close issue'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (GitHub issues for Ark project) and lists actions (search, create, manage), but 'manage' is vague and doesn't specify concrete actions like 'close', 'assign', 'label', or 'comment'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Search, create, and manage GitHub issues for the Ark project') and when ('Use when you need to find existing issues, create new ones, or update issue status') with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant keywords ('GitHub issues', 'create', 'find', 'update') but misses common variations users might say like 'bug report', 'feature request', 'ticket', 'open an issue', or 'close issue'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Scoped specifically to 'GitHub issues for the Ark project' which creates a clear niche. The project-specific scope and GitHub issues focus make it unlikely to conflict with general code or document skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
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.