CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

flake

Track Remotion CI flakes in issue

70

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

96%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.

A tightly written, highly actionable procedural skill with a clear validated workflow and strong command coverage. The only minor gap is progressive disclosure, where a couple of reference blocks (table format, signature examples) could optionally be externalized.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and command-driven throughout; it assumes Claude's competence (no explanation of gh or CI basics) and every section earns its tokens with domain-specific rules rather than filler.

5 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready `gh` commands cover every common entry path (PR given, run/job URL given, no context, rerun, tracker update) with appropriate placeholders.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced phases (Find → Classify → Signature → Update → Rerun → Report) with explicit validation ("Verify after editing") and error-recovery feedback loops (handle non-zero `gh run watch` after cancel).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized with clear section headers and no nested references, and all content is appropriately inline for a procedural skill; sits just over the simple-skill 50-line threshold so does not quite reach the structure-only 5.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 specific, distinctive description with concrete actions and good trigger terms, weakened only by the absence of an explicit "Use when…" clause. Adding trigger guidance would raise completeness.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when a Remotion CI check fails and looks flaky, or when asked to run /flake."

Add a synonym like "retry" or "intermittent CI failures" to broaden natural trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists four concrete actions — "Track Remotion CI flakes", "increment repeated signatures", "discover failed PR checks", "rerun flaky GitHub Actions jobs" — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities.

5 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear and concrete, but there is no explicit "Use when…" trigger clause, so per the guideline completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural terms ("flakes", "flaky", "GitHub Actions", "PR checks", "rerun") a user would say, but a few common synonyms like "retry" or "intermittent failures" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Pinned to a specific repo and issue (#8375) with a narrow CI-flake niche, giving a clear trigger surface with minimal overlap risk.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
remotion-dev/remotion
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.