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

78%

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

66%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 well-structured with an unambiguous single-action workflow, concrete response templates, and explicit error-case handling, but it is noticeably padded: it re-states the frontmatter triggers, includes a trivial property table and tone advice, and demonstrates explanations of basic concepts (factorial, async/await) that Claude already produces natively. Trimming the redundant and pedagogical sections would substantially improve token efficiency.

Suggestions

Remove the 'Skill Activation Triggers', 'Quick Reference', and 'Tone' sections — they duplicate the frontmatter description or tell Claude things it already knows about how to explain code.

Replace the two full worked examples (factorial, async/await) with one short template showing only the required response structure, or move extended examples to a references/ file.

Fix the malformed nested code fences in the examples (a bare ``` block containing a ```python fence) so the user-prompt and code blocks render correctly.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~130-line body contains several padded sections that assume Claude lacks knowledge it has: a "Skill Activation Triggers" section duplicating the frontmatter description, a "Quick Reference" table of trivial properties, tone advice ("Educational and approachable, avoid jargon"), and full worked explanations of factorial recursion and async/await — concepts Claude already knows. It is above 1 because there is no long tutorial-style conceptual exposition, but the padding is noticeable across multiple sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	The guidance is mostly concrete for an instruction-only skill: a specific four-part response structure (Overview, Step-by-step breakdown, Key concepts, Example) plus two complete worked example dialogues showing the exact desired output format. It falls short of 5 because the example code fences are malformed (a bare ``` block containing a nested ```python fence), undermining the copy-paste quality of the templates.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	This is a simple single-task skill and the single action is unambiguous: explain the provided code using the defined structure, with explicit handling of edge inputs ("No code", "Incomplete code", "Non-code text"). There are no destructive or batch operations, so no validation cap applies, and the simple-skill exception holds.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well organized with clear, scannable sections (triggers, guidelines, examples, error cases) and no bundle files are referenced or needed. It does not reach 5 because at ~130 lines the two lengthy worked examples and the language-specific tips table are candidates for external reference files, leaving minor organization gaps.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

90%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 description that explicitly states what the skill does, when to use it with natural trigger phrases, and when not to use it with named alternative skills. The only weakness is that its capability list reduces to one action family (explaining) rather than several distinct concrete actions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Explain code snippets, functions, and algorithms in plain language" names the domain and a concrete action, but "explain", "break down", "walk through", and "clarify" are synonyms of a single action rather than several distinct capabilities, matching the '1-2 concrete actions' anchor. It does not reach 4 because there is no enumeration of multiple distinct operations (the INVOKES line names tools, not user-facing actions).	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what ("Explain code snippets, functions, and algorithms in plain language") and when ("USE FOR: explain code, what does this code do...") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor. It even adds a negative boundary ("DO NOT USE FOR...") beyond the anchor's requirements.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"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" comprehensively covers the natural phrases and synonyms a user would say when asking for a code explanation. Not below 5 because no common variation (explain/understand/walk through/clarify/describe) is missing.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche (explaining existing code) with distinct trigger phrases and an explicit "DO NOT USE FOR: writing new code (use code generation), fixing bugs (use debugging), refactoring..., code review with action items" list that disambiguates adjacent skills. Conflict risk is minimal because both positive and negative boundaries are explicit.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 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: 1234308

Reviewed: 4 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.