code-explainer

**UTILITY SKILL** - Explain code snippets, functions, and algorithms in plain language. USE FOR: explain code, what does this code do, break down this function, help me understand this, walk through this algorithm, clarify this logic, explain this snippet, describe what happens here. DO NOT USE FOR: writing new code (use code generation), fixing bugs (use debugging), refactoring (use refactoring skills), code review with action items. INVOKES: file reading tools to access code, language detection for tailored explanations. FOR SINGLE OPERATIONS: If the user just needs to see file contents, use file reading tools directly.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./examples/code-explainer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

62%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 well-organized and gives a usable response template with good worked examples, but it is padded with generic pedagogy and remains a monolithic file with no progressive disclosure. Tightening the Tone and Language-Specific Tips sections would improve token efficiency.

Suggestions

Remove or condense the Tone and Language-Specific Tips sections, which restate pedagogy Claude already knows, to improve conciseness.

Make the Explanation Guidelines more concrete by replacing abstract directives like 'Walk through the logic' with specific structural cues tied to the response template.

Consider moving the full worked examples into a references file (e.g. EXAMPLES.md) and keeping only a brief pointer in SKILL.md to enable progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient but the Tone section ("Avoid jargon unless explaining it", "Use analogies when helpful", "Assume the reader is smart but unfamiliar") restates generic pedagogy Claude already knows and could be trimmed.	2 / 3
Actionability	A concrete 4-part response template and two worked examples provide actionable structure, but the surrounding guidelines ("Walk through the logic", "Explain any patterns or techniques used") stay abstract rather than giving specific instruction.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	This is a simple single-task skill whose one action is unambiguous, and the Structure section supplies a clear numbered response sequence (Overview, Step-by-step, Key concepts, Example), which meets the simple-skill bar.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the content is a monolithic inline document; sections are organized but the lengthy worked examples sit inline with no offloading to references, fitting the 'some structure, content that could be separate is inline' anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

90%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 well-structured with explicit use/avoid triggers and strong natural-language keywords. Its only weakness is that the core capability is expressed as one action rather than a list of distinct concrete operations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and target objects ("Explain code snippets, functions, and algorithms in plain language") but offers a single action applied to several objects rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions' anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what it does and provides explicit when-to-use triggers via the USE FOR clause, plus negative DO NOT USE FOR guidance, satisfying both the what and when requirements.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The USE FOR list ("explain code, what does this code do, break down this function, help me understand this, walk through this algorithm, clarify this logic") gives good coverage of natural phrases users would actually say.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The DO NOT USE FOR clause explicitly excludes code generation, debugging, refactoring, and code review, carving a clear niche unlikely to trigger the wrong skill.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 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: microsoft/waza
Path: examples/code-explainer/SKILL.md
Commit: f466c4f

Reviewed: 13 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.