code-documentation-code-explain

You are a code education expert specializing in explaining complex code through clear narratives, visual diagrams, and step-by-step breakdowns. Transform difficult concepts into understandable explanations.

Quality

51%

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/code-documentation-code-explain/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%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 concise and well-structured for a single-purpose explanation skill, but it relies on a referenced playbook that is absent from the bundle and lacks concrete examples or validation checkpoints, which limit actionability, workflow clarity, and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Create the referenced resources/implementation-playbook.md (or correct the path) so the progressive-disclosure reference resolves to a real file.

Add one concrete worked example or annotated snippet inline so the guidance is actionable even without the external playbook.

Make the workflow explicit with ordered steps and a light checkpoint (e.g., 'Confirm the user's depth goal before drilling into key components') rather than a loose bullet list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~45-line body is lean with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; only minor duplication of the frontmatter's opening line keeps it just below a clean 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are concrete for an explanation skill ("Assess structure, dependencies, and complexity hotspots", "Explain the high-level flow, then drill into key components") but there is no executable code, concrete command, or worked example, and the referenced playbook that would supply templates is missing.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A loose sequence exists (assess then explain high-level then drill in then call out pitfalls) with a structured Output Format, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints; since this is an explanation rather than destructive/batch skill the 3-cap does not apply, yet checkpoints remain implicit.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized and the playbook reference is clearly signaled in both Instructions and Resources, but the referenced resources/implementation-playbook.md does not exist in any bundle directory, so the navigation path is broken.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

45%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 gives a clear picture of what the skill does but lacks an explicit trigger clause and uses second-person voice, both of which limit its score. It is specific enough to be useful but not comprehensive or sharply distinct.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause naming natural phrases users say (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to explain or walk through complex code, algorithms, or system architecture').

Rewrite in third person ('Explains complex code through clear narratives, visual diagrams, and step-by-step breakdowns') to avoid the second-person voice penalty.

Add concrete synonyms and trigger terms (walkthrough, tutorial, onboarding) to broaden the natural-keyword coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the code-education domain and several actions ("narratives, visual diagrams, and step-by-step breakdowns"), but they are overlapping facets of "explaining" rather than distinct capabilities, and the second-person "You are a code education expert" voice incurs the rubric's -1 specificity penalty from a base of 3.	2 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does (explains complex code via narratives, diagrams, breakdowns) but has no "Use when..." trigger clause in the description, so per the rubric the missing explicit when-guidance caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant keywords like "explaining complex code" and "step-by-step breakdowns" are present, but common synonyms users say ("walkthrough", "tutorial", "walk me through") are missing, placing it at the some-keywords-but-incomplete anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The code-education/explanation niche is somewhat specific but overlaps with debugging, code-review, and general "explain" skills, fitting the somewhat-specific-but-could-overlap anchor.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 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/code-documentation-code-explain/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.