CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

cleanup

Review, refactor, document, and validate code changes in the current branch

Quality

68%

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/cleanup/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%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 rich in concrete, project-specific code patterns and has a clear execution sequence, but it suffers from redundant overview/notes sections, a missing code-level validation checkpoint for a batch code-modification workflow, and no use of progressive disclosure despite holding what is essentially reference material. Splitting pattern catalogs into reference files and adding a test/verify step would raise most dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the execution flow, e.g. "7. Run the project's tests and revert or fix any change that breaks behavior".

Move the detailed Pipecat service-implementation and example-structure patterns into references/ files (e.g. references/patterns.md), keeping SKILL.md as a concise overview with clearly signaled links.

Deduplicate the "Skill Overview", "What This Skill Does", and "Notes" sections into one action list and one short rules list, and replace "Fetch uncommitted and outgoing changes" with the concrete git commands to run.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The "Skill Overview" and "What This Skill Does" sections restate the same six actions, and "Notes" repeats already-stated rules ("Non-breaking improvements only", "Conservative performance changes", "Google-style docstrings"), so the document could be meaningfully tightened even though the Pipecat-specific patterns earn their tokens.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides mostly executable guidance — full Google-docstring templates, a concrete ExampleTTSService implementation, an example bot structure, and before/after refactors — with minor gaps such as no concrete git commands for "Fetch uncommitted and outgoing changes" and `...` placeholders in pattern code.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The "Execution Flow" gives a clear 6-step sequence ending in a prose-validation step, but this batch refactor of all changed files has no code-correctness validation checkpoint (no run-tests or verify-nothing-broke step), which the rubric guidelines cap at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so everything — including the detailed Pipecat service-pattern and example-structure catalogs that clearly belong in separate reference files — is inlined in a single ~320-line SKILL.md, though section headers keep it reasonably organized.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 concise and action-oriented with natural trigger keywords, but it lacks an explicit 'when to use' clause and a distinguishing domain marker (e.g., Pipecat), which caps completeness and distinctiveness. Adding a 'Use when...' clause referencing the codebase standards would lift it substantially.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to clean up, review, or refactor changes in their current branch."

Mention the codebase-specific angle (Pipecat services, examples, and docstring conventions) to differentiate it from generic code-review/refactor skills.

Include common user synonyms such as "clean up", "tidy up", or "code review" alongside the existing verbs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists four concrete actions ("Review, refactor, document, and validate") against a concrete target ("code changes in the current branch"), matching the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor — the verbs remain generic and omit specifics like pattern-consistency or performance work, so it is not comprehensive enough for a 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear via four named actions, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — "in the current branch" only weakly implies 'when' — which the judging guidelines explicitly cap at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"review", "refactor", "code changes", and "branch" are natural phrases users would say, giving good keyword coverage, but common synonyms like "clean up" (ironically the skill's own name) and "code review" are missing, so it falls just short of the comprehensive-synonym anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Code changes in the current branch" narrows the scope, but the description never mentions Pipecat or any codebase-specific standards, so it would still overlap with generic code-review, lint, and refactor skills.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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

pipecat-ai/pipecat

Path

.claude/skills/cleanup/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.