CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

shepherd

Carry a factory pull request through review by resolving review comments and failed checks on its existing branch, until it is ready for a person to merge or needs one to decide. Use as the action for review, review-comment, `@factory` conversation and failed-check triggers on `factory/` branches.

76

Quality

95%

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

100%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.

An exemplary instruction-only skill body: terse, every step executable with exact strings/paths/commands, an explicit validation-before-push checkpoint, a self-limiting budget mechanism with a stated rationale, and clear escalation boundaries. Nothing is over-explained and nothing essential is missing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The 22-line body is lean and operational with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; even the one rationale sentence ("Tessl has no run budget of its own, so this count is the only thing that stops a loop between review and fix") earns its place by justifying the attempt cap. Every token is load-bearing.

5 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete: the exact marker "<!-- perihelion-factory:shepherd -->", the exact label "factory:needs-human", the exact input path ".cloud-launch/trigger-events.json", and specific commands ("Run the build, the tests and `tessl change verify`"). As an instruction-only skill, its guidance is copy-paste-actionable throughout, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced steps with an explicit validation checkpoint (build/tests/verify before commit and push, step 5), a feedback loop for failed checks (read log, reproduce locally, fix the cause, step 4), and an upfront budget check plus enumerated stop-and-hand-back conditions. This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, error-recovery guidance.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

At under 50 lines with no bundle files needed, it is cleanly sectioned (Inputs, Procedure, Stop and hand back) and delegates detail via a single well-signaled one-level reference to the plugin's `resolve-feedback` skill. Per the under-50-line guideline, this merits the top score.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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.

A strong description: concrete actions, an explicit 'Use as the action for...' trigger clause, and a distinct niche scoped to factory/ branches. The only gaps are minor — a few natural trigger phrasings and secondary actions (thread replies, verification) are not surfaced.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"resolving review comments and failed checks", "on its existing branch", and "ready for a person to merge or needs one to decide" name several concrete actions covering the core lifecycle. It sits between the 4 and 5 anchors: coverage is strong but secondary actions (replying in threads, resolving threads, running verification) go unmentioned, so it is not comprehensive.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Carry a factory pull request through review by resolving review comments and failed checks on its existing branch") and when ("Use as the action for review, review-comment, @factory conversation and failed-check triggers on factory/ branches") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor's shape.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms are present: "review", "review-comment", "@factory conversation", "failed-check triggers", "factory/ branches". Good coverage for this domain, but common phrasing variations users might say (e.g. "address review feedback", "fix failing checks") are missing, matching the 'a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive one.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (shepherding factory pull requests on factory/ branches, gated on named factory triggers) with minimal overlap risk against generic review or PR skills. The domain-specific triggers make wrong-skill invocation unlikely.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
perihelionhq/perihelion-platform-context
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.