CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

fluxcd

FluxCD entry point — routes to the right workflow based on what you need. Live cluster issue → structured 5-workflow debug trace. Repo health check → 6-phase audit (discovery, validation, API compliance, best practices, security). Helm chart review → helmchart. Starts by asking one question to confirm the right mode.

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

71%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 well-structured router skill body with concrete commands, clear mode routing, and tight tables, held back by unverifiable references and underspecified audit phases 4–6. The missing bundle files are the biggest issue: the reference table and audit-script instructions point at files that are not present.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced bundle (references/*.md and examples/fluxcd/repo-audit) or trim the reference table to files that actually exist, so the 11 links are not dead ends.

Specify audit Phases 4–6 concretely — the checklists or commands for best practices, security, and report generation — instead of "are analysed from the repo content".

Consolidate version-gated behavior (Flux v2.3+ vs Operator v2.7+, tool minimums) into the version-check section or a migration reference file to keep time-sensitive details out of the entry point.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean — dense routing tables, an error-pattern jump table, and short command blocks with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable overhead: several time-sensitive version numbers ("Flux v2.3+", "v2.7+", "flux >= 2.9.0", "flux-schema >= 0.10.0") sit inline rather than in a versioning/deprecated section, keeping it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: concrete commands like `flux logs --kind=HelmRelease`, `kubectl get <kind> <resource-name-from-error> -o yaml`, `bash "$SCRIPTS/discover.sh" -d .`, and `helm lint --strict ./charts/my-app`. Gaps remain: audit "Phases 4–6 (best practices, security, report) are analysed from the repo content" gives no commands or checklists, and "See the bundled audit README" points to an unverified document.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequencing: the numbered 5-workflow debug list, the error-pattern-to-layer jump table, the version-check branch ("if this CRD exists, you are running Flux Operator"), and "exits 1 in CI if found" as a validation signal. Checkpoints are mostly implicit (matching errors to layers) rather than explicit validate-fix-retry loops, and audit phases 4–6 are undefined, so it does not reach anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body ends with a well-organized, one-level-deep reference table ("Overview, patterns, common mistakes → references/fluxcd.md" etc.) that would merit a 4–5, but no references/, scripts/, or examples/ directories exist in the bundle — all 11 linked reference files and the referenced `examples/fluxcd/repo-audit` audit scripts are absent, so navigation is broken and the promised detail is unreachable.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 router-style description: it states concrete capabilities, maps explicit input situations to each mode, and stays tightly scoped to FluxCD. The only gap is a few natural synonyms (Flux, GitOps, reconciling) that users might use when invoking it.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Multiple specific concrete actions are named: "routes to the right workflow", "structured 5-workflow debug trace", "6-phase audit (discovery, validation, API compliance, best practices, security)", "Helm chart review", and "asking one question to confirm the right mode" — comprehensive for a router skill.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (routes to debug trace / audit / helm review) and 'when' are answered explicitly via concrete trigger phrases: "Live cluster issue →", "Repo health check →", "Helm chart review →". This matches the anchor-5 example's what+when pattern with concrete triggers.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural terms users would say: "live cluster issue", "repo health check", "Helm chart review", "audit", "debug", "FluxCD". A few common synonyms are missing (e.g., "Flux", "GitOps", "not reconciling"), so it falls between anchor 4 and the comprehensive-synonym coverage of 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear FluxCD niche with distinct triggers ("FluxCD", "live cluster issue", "GitOps repository") and minimal conflict risk; the "Helm chart review → helmchart" routing explicitly delegates overlap to the dedicated skill rather than competing with it.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 12 suspicious

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 11 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

nitinjain999/platform-skills

Path

skills/fluxcd/SKILL.md

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.