CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

waza-runner

Run evaluations on Agent Skills to measure their effectiveness. USE FOR: "run skill evals", "evaluate my skill", "test skill quality", "check skill triggers", "skill compliance check", "measure skill performance", "run evals on [skill-name]", "grade skill execution". DO NOT USE FOR: writing skills (use skill-authoring), improving frontmatter (use sensei), or general testing unrelated to skills.

59

Quality

70%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./waza-runner/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%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 reasonably organized with some executable examples, but it is undermined by vague workflow steps, absent validation checkpoints for a batch operation, and two broken reference links. Tightening these would lift several dimensions.

Suggestions

Replace abstract workflow steps with concrete executable commands (e.g., the actual waza command for loading/running tasks) and add a validation checkpoint for failed tasks.

Create the missing references/WRITING-TASKS.md and references/GRADERS.md files, or remove those links to avoid broken navigation.

Trim the blockquote and the "using the same patterns that power AI agent evaluations" phrasing, and drop or condense the "When to Use" section that duplicates the description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient, but the blockquote "Evaluate Agent Skills like you evaluate AI Agents", the phrase "using the same patterns that power AI agent evaluations", and a "When to Use" section that restates the description add padding that could be trimmed.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete bash commands ("waza run ./my-skill/eval.yaml") and a JSON output example are present, but the core workflow steps ("Parse task definitions from tasks/*.yaml", "Run each task through the configured graders") are abstract descriptions rather than executable instructions, matching anchor 3.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The four-step workflow is sequenced, but running evals across tasks is a batch operation with no validation/verification checkpoints (e.g., handling failed tasks or verifying results), which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled and one level deep, but two of the three linked files (references/WRITING-TASKS.md and references/GRADERS.md) do not exist, breaking navigation and pulling this below anchor 4.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

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.

The description is strong: concrete trigger phrases, explicit what/when, and clear boundary guidance make it highly distinctive. The only gap is specificity, where a single primary action is stated rather than a comprehensive list of capabilities.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Run evaluations on Agent Skills to measure their effectiveness" names the domain and one to two concrete actions, but does not enumerate multiple distinct actions; this matches anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'several specific actions'.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly states what ("Run evaluations on Agent Skills to measure their effectiveness") and when via concrete USE FOR trigger phrases, plus a DO NOT USE FOR boundary clause, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The USE FOR list gives comprehensive natural phrasings users would actually say ("run skill evals", "evaluate my skill", "test skill quality", "grade skill execution") with synonyms (evals/evaluate/grade), matching anchor 5's comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (skill evaluations) with distinct triggers and an explicit DO NOT USE FOR clause disambiguating skill-authoring, sensei, and general testing yields minimal conflict risk per anchor 5.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 missing

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 2 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
microsoft/waza
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.