CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

feature-flagging

Operational discipline for feature flags as production infrastructure. Flag types, naming, targeting rules, rollout strategy, lifecycle, governance, stale flag management, and the technical debt patterns that bite teams who weren't deliberate about it.

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 ./skills/feature-flagging/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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.

An unusually actionable, well-structured body: concrete thresholds, gated sequences with feedback loops, and exemplary progressive disclosure to seven real, substantive reference files. Its one weakness is a recap layer — the 14-consideration framework, the rapid-fire failure catalog, and the motivational closing largely restate the main sections and could be consolidated into a single summary form.

Suggestions

Consolidate the recap layer: the '14 considerations' framework, 'Common failures (rapid-fire)', and the closing each restate the main sections — keep one summary form (the audit checklist, which has a distinct use) and cut the rest.

Tighten 'Closing: when to remove a flag' to its actionable core (default disposition is removal; 30-day window; permanent-residence exceptions) and drop the motivational framing ("The discipline of removing them is the discipline of caring about the codebase you will work in next quarter").

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Individual sections are lean and judgment-dense (e.g. "Threshold defaults: 30 days for release flags and experiment flags, 90 days for operational and permission flags"), but the body restates its content three times — once in the topic sections, again in the '14 considerations' framework, and again in 'Common failures (rapid-fire)' — and the closing is rhetorical padding ("None of it ships features today. All of it makes shipping features tomorrow easier."). More than minor trimmable material, so it fits anchor 3 rather than 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact name formats ("release_checkout_redesign_2026q2"), a specific ramp schedule ("1 percent for one day, then 10 percent for two days, then 50 for two days, then 100"), a 5 ms latency budget, a 60-second flip target, four permission tiers, and a mechanical five-step cleanup playbook ("Open one PR per flag... Delete from the platform after the PR merges"). For an instruction-only skill this is copy-paste-ready operational guidance.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Sequences are explicit with validation checkpoints and feedback loops: the ramp-and-watch rule ("monitor the system for at least one peak hour before advancing"), error-recovery logic ("Spike on treatment branch = roll back the flag. Spike on both branches = the issue is unrelated"), a five-phase lifecycle with entry/exit criteria, and a per-phase checklist reference; rollback is even drilled ("Include flag rollback in incident drills").

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All seven referenced files exist and are substantive (83–183 lines each), each linked inline at its natural point ("For pattern catalog and anti-patterns, see references/targeting-rule-patterns.md") plus a consolidated 'Reference files' index; references are one level deep and the body keeps only overview-level content, splitting detail appropriately.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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.

A strong, specific domain description with good keyword coverage, undermined by the complete absence of a 'Use when...' trigger clause — the single most consequential gap, since the body already contains that guidance but it never reaches the description field users and the harness actually see. The rhetorical closing clause ("the technical debt patterns that bite teams who weren't deliberate about it") spends tokens that would be better spent on trigger phrases.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause to the description, e.g. 'Use when creating, modifying, or auditing feature flags, planning a rollout, or cleaning up stale flags' — the body already states this at 'When to use this skill: any time you are about to introduce a flag, modify a flag, audit existing flags, or design a flag-related governance policy' but the frontmatter description lacks it.

Include the natural synonyms users would actually say — 'feature toggle', 'kill switch', 'canary release' — to round out trigger-term coverage.

Replace the rhetorical closing ('the technical debt patterns that bite teams who weren't deliberate about it') with the trigger clause; concise-and-clear beats padded.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete, comprehensive coverage of the domain — "Flag types, naming, targeting rules, rollout strategy, lifecycle, governance, stale flag management" — but these are topic nouns rather than concrete action verbs, so it sits between the 'several specific actions' (4) and 'comprehensive concrete actions' (5) anchors.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ("Operational discipline for feature flags as production infrastructure") but the description contains no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; the body has this ("any time you are about to introduce a flag, modify a flag, audit existing flags"), but the frontmatter description does not, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: "feature flags", "rollout strategy", "targeting rules", "stale flag management", "governance". A few natural terms users would say are missing — "feature toggle", "kill switch", "canary release" — which the body covers but the description omits.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The feature-flag operations niche is clear and distinct, but the description does not itself disambiguate from the closely related experiment-design/experimentation-analytics territory, and terms like "rollout strategy" and "targeting rules" carry minor overlap risk with those skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

rampstackco/claude-skills

Path

skills/feature-flagging/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.