CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sonarcloud

SonarCloud integration. Manage Projects. Use when the user wants to interact with SonarCloud data.

55

Quality

62%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/sonarcloud/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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.

The body is a well-structured, command-driven CLI usage guide with a solid connection workflow including validation and a feedback loop. Its main weaknesses are an unnecessary introductory explanation of SonarCloud and abstract placeholders where concrete SonarCloud-specific examples would help.

Suggestions

Remove or trim the opening paragraph defining SonarCloud; Claude already knows the service.

Add at least one concrete SonarCloud action example (e.g. listing issues for a project) and a real proxy endpoint instead of /path/to/endpoint.

Label the implicit "Step 2" or restructure the connection/action sections so the "skip to Step 2" reference resolves to a visible heading.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly command-focused and efficient, but the opening paragraph explains what SonarCloud is ("cloud-based code quality and security analysis service...") which Claude already knows, plus minor prose padding.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands are given throughout (install, login, connection ensure, action run, request) with a flags table, but the proxy and "Popular actions" sections use abstract placeholders instead of a real SonarCloud endpoint or action example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The connection setup is clearly sequenced with state checks and a poll-retry feedback loop (CLIENT_ACTION_REQUIRED -> poll again), but "skip to Step 2" references a Step 2 that is not labeled, and action-running lacks output validation.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Content is well organized into clearly headed sections with no nested references, appropriate for a single-file CLI guide; minor gaps include redundancy between "Searching for actions" and "Popular actions" and no external reference split despite being over 50 lines.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

57%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.

The description correctly uses third person and includes an explicit "Use when" trigger, satisfying the basic what/when contract. It is held back by a generic "what" and limited natural trigger terms that omit common SonarCloud concepts.

Suggestions

Expand the "what" with concrete actions, e.g. "Query issues, quality gates, and metrics; manage projects and organizations."

Add natural trigger phrases users actually say, such as "code quality", "bugs", "vulnerabilities", "code smells", or "quality gate status".

Tighten the "when" clause to reference specific SonarCloud tasks rather than the generic "interact with SonarCloud data".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain ("SonarCloud integration") but the only action is the generic "Manage Projects", so actions are minimal rather than concrete and comprehensive.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both a "what" ("SonarCloud integration. Manage Projects.") and an explicit "when" ("Use when the user wants to interact with SonarCloud data.") are present, though each is generic and could be more specific.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"SonarCloud", "Projects", and "interact with SonarCloud data" give some relevant keywords, but common natural terms like issues, quality gate, code quality, bugs, or code smells are missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"SonarCloud" names a specific service giving a clear niche with low conflict risk, but the limited trigger phrasing leaves minor overlap risk with related code-quality skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
membranedev/application-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.