CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

local-clawsweeper-review

Run local ClawSweeper exact-item or committed-range reviews without GitHub mutation.

61

Quality

71%

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 ./.agents/skills/local-clawsweeper-review/SKILL.md
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.

The content is highly actionable with a clear, validated workflow and clean single-file organization; its only weakness is moderate verbosity and some redundancy that could be trimmed for token efficiency.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated --target-dir guidance in the Target Checkout Modes section into a single statement to reduce redundancy.

Tighten explanatory prose such as the range-mode auth/network caveats to the essential constraints.

Consider moving detailed first-time Codex auth setup into a referenced file if the skill grows, though the current inline form is acceptable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely command-dense and directive, but contains some redundancy (repeated --target-dir guidance) and explanatory prose (auth setup notes, range-mode caveats) that could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

It provides concrete, copy-paste-ready commands across POSIX and PowerShell (pnpm run review -- --local-only --item-number <pr-number>, codex login, git -C <target-dir> fetch/switch/pull) with clear placeholders.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The process is clearly sequenced (locate -> setup -> target checkout -> run -> read artifact -> closeout) with explicit validation checkpoints (git status --short before changes, clean-checkout enforcement) and a confirmation checklist in Closeout.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; the skill is a single self-contained file with well-organized, clearly headed sections and no nested references, appropriate for its scope.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

57%

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 specific and distinctive, naming the tool and its read-only boundary, but it omits an explicit trigger clause and relies on domain jargon, leaving completeness and trigger coverage at the mid level.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause stating when to invoke this skill (e.g., when someone wants read-only ClawSweeper output before submitting, updating, or re-reviewing an issue or PR).

Include more natural user phrasings alongside the jargon, such as "local PR review" or "pre-submit review" to broaden trigger coverage.

Optionally list the concrete actions more comprehensively (e.g., run, read, and summarize local review artifacts) to lift specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the ClawSweeper domain and two review modes ("exact-item or committed-range reviews") plus a constraint, but the concrete actions reduce to running reviews in two modes rather than a comprehensive list of distinct operations.

2 / 3

Completeness

It clearly states what the skill does (run local reviews without GitHub mutation) but provides no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"ClawSweeper", "local", and "review" are relevant keywords a user of the tool would say, but "exact-item" and "committed-range" are jargon-heavy with few natural variations covered.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The distinct proper noun "ClawSweeper" plus the "without GitHub mutation" boundary carve a clear niche that is unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

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
openclaw/clawsweeper
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.