CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

improve

Survey any codebase as a senior advisor and produce prioritized, self-contained implementation plans for OTHER models/agents to execute. Strictly read-only on source code — never implements, fixes, or refactors anything itself. Use when asked to audit a codebase, find improvement opportunities (bugs, security, performance, test coverage, tech debt, migrations, DX), suggest features or where to take the project next (roadmap, product direction), or generate handoff plans for another agent to implement.

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.

The body is a well-engineered, highly actionable skill with a clear phased workflow, strong validation/feedback loops, and clean progressive disclosure into three real reference files. Its only weakness is conciseness: it runs long and occasionally restates guidance, sitting at the edge of the token budget rather than fully lean.

Suggestions

Trim or move the subagent-prompt bulleted list (Phase 2) and the economics paragraph into references/ to reduce SKILL.md length — they are valuable but not needed on first load.

Consolidate the duplicated vetting/reconciliation guidance that recurs across Phase 2, Phase 3, and the Invocation variants into a single statement plus a pointer.

Consider moving the full quick/standard/deep effort-level table into a reference and keeping only the default and the keyword mapping inline.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is high-signal and assumes Claude's competence, but at ~120 lines it is long for a SKILL.md and restates guidance in places (the economics paragraph, the verbose subagent-prompt bullet list, and the effort-level table), which is 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than lean where every token earns its place.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance throughout — exact commands ('git rev-parse --short HEAD', 'git merge-base', 'tsc --noEmit', 'npm audit', 'gh repo view --json visibility'), concrete directory layouts ('plans/001-<slug>.md'), explicit finding-table columns, and a precise subagent-prompt specification.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Four phases (Recon → Audit → Vet → Write plans) are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ('Vet before presenting — subagents over-report', 'open the cited code yourself and confirm it'), drift detection via a stamped commit, and feedback loops (vet→downgrade/reject, executor diff review→verdict).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that signals three one-level-deep references — audit-playbook.md, plan-template.md, closing-the-loop.md — each a real file under references/ and clearly flagged ('read it now', 'read it before writing the first plan', 'Read before the first dispatch'), with detail appropriately split out of SKILL.md.

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.

The description is specific, trigger-rich, complete, and distinctive: it states concrete capabilities, gives natural 'Use when' triggers covering both what and when, and carves out a clear read-only-advisor niche. The 'Use when' phrasing matches the rubric's own good examples, so the second-person guideline does not apply to the capability statements (which are third person).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions — 'audit a codebase', 'find improvement opportunities (bugs, security, performance, test coverage, tech debt, migrations, DX)', 'suggest features', 'generate handoff plans' — matching the score-3 anchor for listing several specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Survey any codebase... produce prioritized, self-contained implementation plans') and when ('Use when asked to audit a codebase, find improvement opportunities... or generate handoff plans'), with an explicit trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Uses natural user-facing phrases ('audit a codebase', 'suggest features', 'where to take the project next', 'roadmap', 'product direction', 'handoff plans'), giving good coverage of terms a user would actually say.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche — a read-only advisor that produces plans for OTHER agents to execute — and the 'never implements, fixes, or refactors anything itself' framing distinguishes it from implementation/refactor skills, making wrong-skill triggering unlikely.

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
openstatusHQ/data-table-filters
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.