code-explainer

Paste any code snippet and get a plain English explanation of what it does and how it works.

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/gemma/code-explainer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 tight, executable spec: it tells Claude exactly which tool to call and the precise JSON fields to produce, with concrete example prompts. As a simple single-purpose skill it satisfies conciseness, actionability, workflow clarity, and structure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~10-line body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	It specifies the exact `run_js` tool call with a fully-typed JSON field schema, making the guidance copy-paste ready and unambiguous.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The single action (one run_js call) is unambiguous, and the rubric allows simple single-task skills to score 3 when the action is clear; no destructive/batch step requires validation.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized Examples and Instructions sections keep the short body navigable; bundle files (scripts/index.html, assets/webview.html) are real and consistent with the runtime flow, satisfying the simple-skill bar.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Description

50%Weight 40%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.

The description is concise and states a clear purpose, but it omits explicit "Use when..." trigger guidance and only enumerates one broad action, leaving it mid-range across dimensions. It is distinctive enough to mostly avoid wrong-skill triggering.

Suggestions

Add a "Use when..." clause naming natural triggers (e.g. "Use when the user asks to explain, summarize, or walk through a code snippet").

List multiple concrete actions (e.g. explains what it does, how it works, and points out gotchas) to reach the score-3 specificity anchor.

Include common phrasings users would say ("explain this code", "what does this do") to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The phrase "get a plain English explanation of what it does and how it works" names concrete outputs (what + how) but covers a single overall action rather than the multiple distinct actions the score-3 anchor calls for.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly answers what the skill does, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 2 per the judging guidelines.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like "code snippet", "plain English explanation", and "what it does" match how users phrase the request, but common variations (e.g. "explain this code", "read this snippet") are not explicitly covered.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The focus on explaining code snippets is a recognizable niche, but "code" is broad and could overlap with general coding or documentation skills.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: mergisi/awesome-openclaw-agents
Path: skills/gemma/code-explainer/SKILL.md
Commit: 05820c5

Reviewed: 8 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.