CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

retro

Improve agent harness configuration based on recent friction points. Use when invoked as `$retro` or when the user asks for autonomous cleanup of Codex, agent harness, or migrated Claude configuration.

Quality

79%

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 ./.claude/skills/retro/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

76%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.

This is a deliberately minimal, auto-generated wrapper skill that fully delegates to a shared skill file outside the bundle. It is maximally concise and its single instruction is concrete and unambiguous, but it offers no visible workflow, validation, or task substance of its own, and the referenced path is unverifiable from the skill directory. It scores well on efficiency and structure while the substantive dimensions depend entirely on content that is not present here.

Suggestions

Since the skill performs autonomous cleanup of configuration (a batch, potentially destructive operation), add a brief validation/verification expectation at this level (e.g., 'Before applying cleanup changes, confirm the target config parses and back up modified files') so the workflow is not capped by the missing-checkpoint rule.

Add one line summarizing what the shared skill covers (e.g., which config files or friction sources it reviews) so the wrapper serves as a genuine overview even if the referenced path is unavailable.

Make the delegation resilient: note what to do if `~/.agents/skills/retro/SKILL.md` is missing (e.g., fall back to reviewing recent session friction points directly), since the current body dead-ends if the shared file is absent.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is two lines — a generation comment ('Generated by scripts/agent-harnesses.py; do not edit directly.') and a single delegation instruction ('Load and follow the shared skill at ~/.agents/skills/retro/SKILL.md.') — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

'Load and follow the shared skill at `~/.agents/skills/retro/SKILL.md`' is a concrete, executable instruction with an exact path, but the body itself carries no task-level guidance or fallback — all substance is delegated to an external file. It is mostly executable guidance with a coverage gap within the document, fitting the 4 anchor rather than 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The single delegation step is unambiguous, which would normally earn 5 under the simple-skill exception, but the skill's stated purpose is 'autonomous cleanup' of agent/Codex/Claude configuration — a batch, modification-heavy operation — and the body shows no validation or verification checkpoint. The rubric explicitly caps destructive/batch skills without validation at 3, taking precedence over the simple-skill exception.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean wrapper with one clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference — trivially navigable. It falls short of 5 because the reference points outside the skill bundle to an absolute home-directory path that does not resolve in this environment, and the wrapper includes no overview of what the delegated skill actually covers.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

73%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 well-formed for a niche internal tool: it answers both what and when explicitly, uses an appropriate third-person 'Use when...' clause, and its trigger vocabulary is distinct and unlikely to collide with other skills. Its main weakness is that the 'what' rests on generic verbs ('improve', 'cleanup') without naming the concrete operations performed on the configuration.

Suggestions

Replace the generic 'Improve agent harness configuration' with the concrete operations involved (e.g., 'Reviews recent session friction points and updates Codex/Claude harness settings, permissions, and CLAUDE.md files') to lift specificity.

Add one or two common user phrasings as triggers (e.g., 'clean up my config', 'fix my harness settings') to broaden natural keyword coverage beyond the niche vocabulary.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('agent harness configuration') and a couple of actions ('Improve ... based on recent friction points', 'autonomous cleanup'), but the actions are generic verbs — it never says what improvement entails (e.g., editing settings, pruning permissions, updating CLAUDE.md). This matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' better than 4's 'several specific actions'.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: what ('Improve agent harness configuration based on recent friction points') and an explicit when ('Use when invoked as `$retro` or when the user asks for autonomous cleanup of Codex, agent harness, or migrated Claude configuration'). It is not 5 because the 'what' stays high-level — the concrete trigger phrases in the when-clause are stronger than the description of the action itself.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'autonomous cleanup', 'Codex', 'agent harness', 'migrated Claude configuration', plus the explicit '$retro' invocation — terms a user of this niche would actually say. It falls short of 5 because common variations like 'settings', 'config cleanup', or file-level terms are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (retro/cleanup of agent harness and migrated Codex/Claude configuration) with distinct triggers ('$retro', 'Codex', 'agent harness') that virtually no other skill would claim. Minimal conflict risk with general document- or code-handling skills.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

phatblat/dotfiles

Path

.claude/skills/retro/SKILL.md

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.