fix-clippy
Fix all clippy lint warnings in the project
73
Quality
60%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
93%
1.34xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/fix-clippy/SKILL.mdDiscovery
32%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 identifies a specific Rust tooling task but is too terse to be effective for skill selection. It lacks explicit trigger guidance, comprehensive action details, and natural keyword variations that would help Claude reliably choose this skill over others.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'clippy', 'Rust lints', 'cargo clippy', 'lint warnings', or 'code quality'
Expand the action description to include specific capabilities like 'run clippy, analyze warnings, apply auto-fixes, and address manual fixes'
Include file type triggers like '.rs files' or 'Rust project' to improve distinctiveness
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names a specific domain (clippy lints) and one action (fix warnings), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions or elaborate on what fixing entails (e.g., auto-fix, manual review, specific lint categories). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Only describes what (fix clippy warnings) with no 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance. Missing the 'when should Claude use it' component entirely. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'clippy' and 'lint warnings' which are relevant keywords, but misses common variations like 'Rust lints', 'cargo clippy', 'lint errors', or 'code warnings'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Clippy' is Rust-specific which provides some distinctiveness, but could overlap with general code fixing or linting skills. The scope 'in the project' is vague. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-crafted, concise skill that provides clear, actionable commands for fixing Clippy warnings. The important distinction between warnings and errors is valuable. The main weakness is the lack of a verification step after manual fixes to confirm all warnings are resolved.
Suggestions
Add a Step 3 verification step: re-run the clippy command to confirm zero warnings remain after manual fixes
Consider adding a brief note on what to do if warnings persist after manual fixes (e.g., legitimate suppressions with #[allow()])
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely lean and efficient. Every line serves a purpose with no unnecessary explanation of what Clippy is or how Rust works. The critical note about warnings vs errors is valuable context Claude might not infer. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides exact, copy-paste ready commands (`make fix`, `cargo clippy --tests 2>&1 | grep...`). Clear executable steps with no pseudocode or vague instructions. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced (auto-fix first, then manual), but lacks explicit validation/verification step to confirm all warnings are resolved. No feedback loop for checking success after manual fixes. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines, the content is appropriately structured with clear sections. No need for external references given the scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- 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.