CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agent-host-chat-contributions

Build and review cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions. Use when adding turn lifecycle side effects, prompt or context injection, restored-history transformation, protocol-action observation, or when reviewing changes that add code to AgentSideEffects or AgentService.

68

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 highly actionable, knowledge-dense body that encodes non-obvious codebase conventions with concrete code, decision tests, and named traps. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: it is a long monolithic document with no reference-file split despite carrying detail that could live separately.

Suggestions

Move the seven-hook semantics table and the memento-lifecycle/trap detail into a references file (e.g., references/hooks.md, references/mementos.md), leaving SKILL.md as a concise overview that links one level deep.

Tighten the discursive rationale passages (e.g., the rejected-discriminant aside and the history of hook removals) to the minimum needed to convey the rule, trimming tokens without losing the design intent.

Make the add-a-contribution workflow explicit as a numbered sequence with a verification checkpoint (write/run the dispatcher and built-in-sequence tests) before declaring the work done.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is information-dense and assumes Claude's competence (no generic explanations of DI or TypeScript), with every section carrying concrete file paths, order values, and real traps; a few discursive rationale passages (e.g., the rejected-discriminant aside) could be trimmed, keeping it just short of fully lean.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: a concrete 3-question decision test, a complete copy-paste-shaped contribution class example, a hook table with existing-example columns, explicit order numbers, and named traps with real error strings ("d.dispose is not a function", "UNKNOWN service <id>") cover the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence is present (read files → apply decision test → create directory with required parts → register in builtInChatContributions → add tests) with verification via the test-as-extraction-proof section; it is not a destructive/batch skill so the validation cap does not apply, but explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoints are only implicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The document is well-sectioned with clearly-signaled one-level-deep repo-path references, but no bundle files exist and substantial detail (the seven-hook semantics table, memento lifecycle, service-registration traps) is inlined in a single ~170-line file rather than split into reference materials.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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, specific description that clearly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete trigger phrases tied to a distinct codebase niche. Its only weakness is domain-internal jargon that slightly limits natural phrasing and universal concreteness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and lists several concrete actions ("turn lifecycle side effects, prompt or context injection, restored-history transformation, protocol-action observation"), but the framing "cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions" is abstract and actions are stated in domain-internal jargon rather than universally concrete, leaving minor coverage gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Build and review cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions") and when, with a "Use when..." clause listing multiple concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-trigger coverage for this niche ("adding turn lifecycle side effects", "prompt or context injection", "reviewing changes that add code to AgentSideEffects or AgentService"), but it misses common synonyms/variations and "protocol-action observation" reads more formal than what a developer would naturally say.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The triggers are tightly bound to a specific codebase niche (AgentSideEffects, AgentService, agent-host chat contributions), giving a clear distinct niche with minimal conflict risk against other skills.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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
microsoft/vscode
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.