CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

wiki-lint

Health-check the wiki for contradictions, stale claims, orphan pages, missing cross-references, and knowledge gaps. Use periodically or when the user says 'lint the wiki' or 'check wiki health'.

75

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, concise read-only audit workflow with a clear sequence and concrete output templates. The main gap is actionability: detection steps describe goals rather than executable Glob/Grep methodology.

Suggestions

Add concrete Glob/Grep examples for each check, e.g. to find orphan pages run a grep over all [[wikilinks]] and diff against the index, so the detection methodology is executable rather than goal-oriented.

For contradiction detection, show how to cross-reference the same entity across pages (e.g. grep for an entity name, then compare the matching claims) instead of just instructing to 'scan pages that reference the same entities'.

Optionally add a brief verification step confirming the report's counts match what was found in the index, giving the workflow a light feedback loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean bullet/checklist form with no concept-explaining padding; assumes Claude's competence and every section earns its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Report and log templates are copy-paste ready, but the detection steps are goal-oriented (e.g. "Find pages with no inbound [[wikilinks]]") without concrete Glob/Grep commands despite those being the allowed tools.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear four-step sequence (read index, check categories, report, log) with per-category checklists; read-only audit needs no validation checkpoints, so the destructive-ops cap does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the single-purpose body is well-organized into clear sections and is appropriately self-contained with no nested references.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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: concrete actions, natural trigger phrases, explicit what-and-when guidance, and a distinctive niche. No meaningful gaps to address.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete check actions — 'contradictions, stale claims, orphan pages, missing cross-references, and knowledge gaps' — rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (health-check the wiki for the listed issues) and when ("Use periodically or when the user says...") with explicit triggers.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say — "'lint the wiki' or 'check wiki health'" — giving good coverage of trigger terms.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (wiki auditing) with distinctive triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
open-gitagent/opengap
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.