rationalize-deps

Analyze Cargo.toml dependencies and attempt to remove unused features to reduce compile times and binary size

1.40x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

62%

1.40x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

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 lean, highly actionable, and well-organized with executable commands and concrete before/after examples. Its only real gap is workflow_clarity: the destructive batch edits to Cargo.toml would benefit from an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop around the edit cycle.

Suggestions

Frame Step 3c/3d as an explicit feedback loop: 'edit → cargo check → if errors, re-add only required features → re-check until it passes', mirroring the good example's validate→fix→retry pattern.

Add a brief checkpoint note in Step 3 that no dependency should be considered done until `cargo check` passes, so the recovery loop is unambiguous.

Consider noting that binary-search results should be re-verified with a final `cargo check --workspace --all-targets` to close the loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and command/code-driven with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows (e.g., it never explains what Cargo or features are), so nearly every token earns its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	It provides fully executable commands (`cargo tree -p <crate> -f "{p} {f}" --edges features`, `cargo metadata ... \| jq`, `cargo check --workspace`) and copy-paste-ready TOML before/after snippets, with specific examples for serde, tokio, and reqwest.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear 5-step sequence with `cargo check` checkpoints is present, but the destructive batch edits to Cargo.toml lack an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop framing; the binary-search sub-procedure describes iteration without a formal recovery checkpoint, so it does not reach the explicit-feedback-loop bar of 3.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and this is a well-organized, single-purpose skill with clear sections, which the scoring notes allow to score 3 without external file references.	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 clearly states what the skill does and occupies a distinct niche, but it lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger and is light on natural trigger-term coverage, both of which cap it at the middle band. Adding a 'Use when...' clause naming common user phrases would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when reducing Rust compile times, trimming crate features, or auditing Cargo.toml dependencies'.

Include natural trigger terms users say, such as 'crate', 'cargo', 'cargo build', 'Rust binary size', and 'default-features'.

Expand the action list slightly (e.g. 'identifies, disables, and re-enables only required features') to push specificity toward 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names a concrete domain (Cargo.toml dependencies) and concrete actions ('Analyze', 'attempt to remove unused features'), but is a single sentence rather than a comprehensive list of distinct actions, so it does not reach the multiple-specific-actions bar of 3.	2 / 3
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger, and the judging guideline caps completeness at 2 when explicit 'when' guidance is absent.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'Cargo.toml dependencies', 'unused features', 'compile times', and 'binary size' are relevant natural terms, but common variations a Rust user would say ('crate', 'cargo', 'cargo build', 'Rust') are missing.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Rust dependency feature management is a clear niche with distinct triggers (Cargo.toml, unused features) that is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	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.