fix-clippy

Fix all clippy lint warnings in the project

1.34x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

93%

1.34x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

87%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is concise, actionable, and well-organized for a simple skill, with executable commands and a useful non-obvious tip. Its one gap is the absence of an explicit verification step to confirm no clippy warnings remain after manual fixes.

Suggestions

Add a final verification step that re-runs clippy and confirms zero warnings, e.g. `cargo clippy --tests 2>&1 | grep "^warning:" | wc -l` should output 0, with a retry loop if any remain.

Make the manual-fix sub-step slightly more concrete by showing how to locate a warning (e.g. reading the file:line from the clippy output) before fixing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it does not explain what clippy is, and the "Never grep for error" tip earns its place as non-obvious guidance. Not 2 because there is no unnecessary explanation or padding to tighten.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable, copy-paste-ready commands (`make fix` and `cargo clippy --tests 2>&1 \| grep "^warning:" \| sort -u`). Not 2 because the guidance is real executable commands rather than pseudocode or abstract direction.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Two steps are clearly sequenced, but there is no explicit validation/verification checkpoint confirming all warnings are resolved, which the guidelines require for batch operations (capping at 2). Not 3 because the validate->fix->retry feedback loop is absent; not 1 because the steps are listed and ordered.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no need for external references, organized into clear Step 1 / Step 2 sections, which the guidelines allow to score 3. Not 2 because the structure is clean and appropriately self-contained.	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 concrete and clearly distinguishable, but it states only the what without any when-to-use trigger guidance and offers limited natural-language term coverage. It is a solid single-action description that would benefit from an explicit trigger clause.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to fix clippy warnings, clean up Rust lints, or resolve cargo clippy output.'

Broaden natural trigger terms to cover variations users actually say, such as 'clippy warnings', 'lints', 'clippy lints', and 'cargo clippy'.

Optionally enumerate specific actions (auto-fix vs. manual fix) to lift specificity from a single action to multiple concrete actions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names a concrete domain ("clippy lint warnings") and one action ("Fix"), matching the anchor that names a domain and some actions but is not comprehensive. Not 3 because only a single action is given rather than multiple specific concrete actions; not 1 because it is concrete rather than vague.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers WHAT (fix clippy lint warnings) but provides no "Use when…" clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the guidelines completeness is capped at 2. Not 3 because the when is entirely missing; not 1 because the what is stated clearly.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"clippy lint warnings" are natural terms a user would say, but the description omits common variations such as "clippy warnings", "lints", or "clippy lints". Not 3 due to limited coverage of natural term variations; not 1 because the keywords are relevant and natural rather than jargon.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clippy is a specific Rust linting tool with a distinct niche and triggers, making it unlikely to conflict with other skills. Not 2 because it is not merely "somewhat specific"; it targets a uniquely named tool.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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: quickwit-oss/quickwit
Commit: f3cddcb

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.