CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

code-breaking-changes

Breaking changes

38

Quality

36%

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 ./.codex/skills/code-review-breaking-changes/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 exceptionally concise and well-structured for a simple skill, but its guidance stays at the level of naming where to look without specifying how to check, and it lacks a validation step to confirm completeness of a batch analysis.

Suggestions

Add concrete detection methods per surface, e.g. specific grep patterns, schema-diff commands, or example before/after signatures for each of the four integration surfaces.

Include a verification step such as a checklist the agent must complete for all four surfaces before concluding, turning the "do not stop" directive into an explicit checkpoint.

Give one concrete example of a breaking change (e.g. a removed CLI flag or a renamed config key) so the expected output is unambiguous.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is seven lean lines with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place, matching the anchor for lean and efficient content.

5 / 5

Actionability

It enumerates four concrete surfaces to search (app-server APIs, CLI parameters, configuration loading, resuming sessions) but gives no executable method or specific check, fitting the anchor for some concrete guidance that is incomplete.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A rough sequence exists with a partial directive ("Do not stop after finding one issue"), but as a batch-analysis operation it lacks an explicit validation checkpoint that the analysis is complete, which the rubric caps at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a short single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and it is cleanly organized into a scoped bullet list plus a directive, so it qualifies for the simple-skill exception of a top score.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

0%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 a bare two-word label with no actions, triggers, or distinguishing scope, so it scores at the floor across every dimension. It needs concrete capabilities and an explicit "Use when..." trigger to be usable.

Suggestions

Expand into concrete actions, e.g. "Detect breaking changes in app-server APIs, CLI parameters, configuration loading, and session rollout formats."

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when reviewing changes that affect external integration surfaces or preparing a release/migration."

Differentiate from generic review skills by naming the specific surfaces (APIs, CLI, config, sessions) the description targets.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description is just "Breaking changes" — it names no concrete actions and offers only an abstract concept, matching the anchor for entirely vague language with no concrete actions.

1 / 5

Completeness

It states neither a clear "what" (no actions described) nor any "when" trigger, matching the anchor for missing both what and when or both being extremely vague.

1 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Breaking changes" is generic technical shorthand rather than a natural phrase a user would say when they need this skill; no natural keywords or synonyms are present.

1 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Breaking changes" is entirely generic and would plausibly conflict with virtually any code-review or migration skill, matching the anchor for entirely generic, high-conflict descriptions.

1 / 5

Total

4

/

20

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

description_field

'description' is very short (16 chars), consider making it more detailed

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
openai/codex
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.