bash-defensive-patterns

Master defensive Bash programming techniques for production-grade scripts. Use when writing robust shell scripts, CI/CD pipelines, or system utilities requiring fault tolerance and safety.

Quality

53%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/bash-defensive-patterns/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

42%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.

The body is well-structured and reasonably lean, but it provides only high-level hints with no executable code, and the single deferred-to reference file is missing from the bundle, undermining both actionability and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Add concrete, copy-paste-ready snippets for the core defensive patterns (e.g. a `set -euo pipefail` + `trap 'catch ERR' ERR` strict-mode block) instead of only describing them.

Either create `resources/implementation-playbook.md` with the promised patterns/checklists/templates or remove the dangling reference, and avoid stating the reference twice.

Insert an explicit validation checkpoint into the workflow (e.g. 'After enabling strict mode, run the script on a sample input and confirm it exits non-zero on the first error').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and assumes Claude's bash knowledge, but the opening sentence restates the description, the 'Use this skill when' list has overlapping entries, and the playbook reference is stated twice (prose and Resources).	3 / 5
Actionability	The Instructions are high-level hints ('Enable strict mode', 'Validate inputs, quote variables, and handle files safely') with no executable code (no `set -euo pipefail`, no `trap`), and the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` that would hold the concrete patterns does not exist.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 4-step sequence is present (confirm env, enable strict mode, validate inputs, add logging/traps/tests), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints, and the Safety section flags destructive operations which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the rubric.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized (Use when / Do not use when / Instructions / Safety / Resources), but the sole external reference points to a non-existent `resources/implementation-playbook.md` and is duplicated in both prose and the Resources list.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

65%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.

The description answers both 'what' and 'when' with good natural trigger terms and a clear niche, but loses points on specificity because it leads with a second-person imperative ('Master') and describes no concrete defensive techniques.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person (e.g. 'Provides defensive Bash programming patterns...') to avoid the second-person/imperative voice penalty.

Replace the generic 'Master defensive Bash programming techniques' with 1-2 concrete actions (e.g. 'Sets strict-mode defaults, error traps, and input validation for production shell scripts').

Add common synonyms like 'bash scripts' or '.sh files' to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain clearly ('defensive Bash programming techniques for production-grade scripts') but lists no concrete actions beyond the generic verb 'Master', and the imperative 'Master' is second-person voice, reducing the score by 1 from a base of 3.	2 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' (master defensive Bash techniques for production scripts) and 'when' (Use when writing robust shell scripts, CI/CD pipelines, or system utilities...) are explicitly present, but the 'what' is somewhat abstract rather than concrete.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural trigger phrases like 'robust shell scripts', 'CI/CD pipelines', and 'system utilities' are present and would be said by users, but common synonyms (e.g. 'bash scripts', '.sh') are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The defensive/fault-tolerance framing is a fairly distinct niche, though it could overlap with a more general bash scripting skill, so minor overlap risk remains.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 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: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/bash-defensive-patterns/SKILL.md
Commit: 3eff4af

Reviewed: 1 day 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.