CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

octopus-quick

Quick execution for ad-hoc tasks without full workflow overhead — use for small, self-contained requests

61

Quality

72%

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 ./.claude/skills/skill-quick/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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 skill body is highly actionable with executable commands and a clear, checkpoint-aware workflow including an escalation loop, but it is verbose for a self-described low-overhead skill and makes no use of progressive disclosure despite its length. Trimming redundant sections and splitting reference material into bundled files would improve both weak dimensions.

Suggestions

Cut the redundant Benefits, Best Practices DO/DON'T, Troubleshooting, and Summary sections — they restate the When-to-use and Execution-flow content — and remove the obvious-task bullet catalogs to lift conciseness toward score 3.

Move the long summary-template heredoc, the comparison table, and the directory-structure example into a references/ file (e.g. references/templates.md) signaled from the body, adding one-level-deep progressive disclosure.

Add an explicit pre-commit verification checkpoint (e.g. run affected tests or lint before the atomic commit) so the workflow_clarity feedback loop covers correctness, not only scope escalation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The 365-line body catalogs obvious task categories ("Typo corrections", "Import/export corrections", "Rename variables/functions") Claude already knows and restates the same message across Benefits, Comparison, Best Practices, Troubleshooting, and Summary sections — matching the score-2 "mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened"; it is not score 1 because the actionable commit/state/summary commands earn their place, but not 3 given the padding.

2 / 3

Actionability

The body gives copy-paste-ready, executable commands — "git add [changed-files]" / "git commit -m ..." , the state-manager.sh invocations with real arguments, and a complete summary heredoc using "$(git log -1 ...)" and "$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)" — matching the score-3 "fully executable code/commands; copy-paste ready"; it is well above the score-2 pseudocode anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly numbered 5-step sequence (Understand → Make change → Atomic commit → Record in state → Generate summary) is paired with an explicit escalation feedback loop ("If during execution you realize the task is more complex than expected... Stop and escalate") with concrete indicators, matching the score-3 "clear sequence with... feedback loops for error recovery"; not capped at 2 because quick-mode edits are not destructive/batch operations requiring validation checkpoints.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ all absent) and the body is a single monolithic 365-line file with everything inline; sections are well-organized so it is not the score-1 disorganized wall, but inline content that could be split (the comparison table, the full summary template, directory structure) and absence of any signaled one-level-deep references keep it at the score-2 anchor rather than 3.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%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 answers both what and when with an explicit use clause, but it is generic and light on concrete actions and trigger-term coverage, leaving it modestly distinguishable. Strengthening the trigger vocabulary and listing concrete actions would raise specificity and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Expand the description with concrete actions (e.g. 'apply one-file bug fixes, update config files, rename symbols, bump dependency versions') to move specificity toward score 3.

Add natural user-facing trigger terms directly into the description — e.g. 'Use when the user says quick fix, ad-hoc task, or asks for a fast small change' — so trigger_term_quality covers common variants.

Sharpen distinctiveness by contrasting the niche explicitly in one phrase (e.g. 'single-file changes with a known solution, not new features or multi-file refactors') to reduce overlap with the full workflow skill.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes "Quick execution for ad-hoc tasks" name the domain and a general action but do not list multiple concrete actions (e.g. the score-3 "extract, fill forms, merge" pattern); it stops at one high-level action, so it sits at the score-2 anchor rather than 3, and is clearly above the vague score-1 floor.

2 / 3

Completeness

"Quick execution for ad-hoc tasks without full workflow overhead" states what the skill does and "use for small, self-contained requests" provides an explicit 'use for' trigger equivalent to the rubric's 'Use when...' clause, satisfying both halves; not 2 because the when-clause is explicit rather than implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"ad-hoc tasks" and "small, self-contained requests" are reasonably natural terms a user might say, but coverage is thin — common variants like "quick fix" or "fast execution" only appear in the trigger field, not the description — so it matches the score-2 "some relevant keywords but missing common variations" rather than the broad score-3 coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Quick execution for ad-hoc tasks" is fairly generic and could overlap with many general-purpose or sibling workflow skills, though "without full workflow overhead" gives it a narrow niche relative to its companion full-workflow skill — matching the score-2 "somewhat specific but could still overlap" rather than the clearly-niched score-3.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
nyldn/claude-octopus
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.