incident-response-smart-fix

[Extended thinking: This workflow implements a sophisticated debugging and resolution pipeline that leverages AI-assisted debugging tools and observability platforms to systematically diagnose and res

Quality

35%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/incident-response-smart-fix/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

20%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is dominated by a leaked chain-of-thought dump that wastes the context window, followed by generic, non-executable instructions and a reference to a file that is not present. It scores poorly on conciseness and actionability, with only a nominal workflow sequence and reference structure keeping the other dimensions at mid-level.

Suggestions

Delete the leaked "[Extended thinking: ...]" block entirely — it is internal reasoning, not skill content.

Replace the generic Instructions bullets with concrete, executable guidance such as specific commands, agent-invocation examples, or a copy-paste-ready debug workflow.

Add explicit validation/verification checkpoints (e.g., run the test suite; if failures occur, fix and re-run before proceeding) and create the missing resources/implementation-playbook.md so the referenced file exists.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body opens with a ~200-word leaked "[Extended thinking: ...]" block that is internal reasoning padded with concepts Claude already knows (the four-phase approach, named AI tools), matching the score-1 anchor of verbose, padded, unnecessary context.	1 / 3
Actionability	The Instructions are entirely abstract ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs", "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") with no concrete code, commands, or examples; it describes rather than instructs, matching the score-1 anchor.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A four-phase sequence (Analysis, Root Cause, Fix, Verification) is present in the leaked block, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints, feedback loops, or checklists, and the actual Instructions section has no sequence — matching the score-2 anchor of steps present but checkpoints missing.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body has organized sections and signals a one-level reference to resources/implementation-playbook.md, but that referenced file does not exist (no resources/ or bundle directory) and the leaked thinking block is content that should not be inline, matching the score-2 anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 is corrupted: it begins with a leaked "[Extended thinking:" prefix and is truncated mid-word ("diagnose and res"). Beyond that, it conveys a recognizable debugging/resolution niche with buzzword-heavy, jargon-laden language and no explicit use-when trigger, placing it at the mid-level across all dimensions.

Suggestions

Remove the leaked "[Extended thinking:" prefix and finish the truncated sentence so the description is a clean, complete statement.

Add an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause with natural user phrasings (e.g., "Use when debugging production incidents, fixing regressions, or diagnosing failing deployments").

Replace buzzwords ("sophisticated", "leverages") and jargon ("observability platforms") with concrete actions and terms users would actually say.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The text names the domain and some actions ("debugging and resolution pipeline", "systematically diagnose") but relies on buzzwords like "sophisticated" and "leverages" rather than a comprehensive list of concrete actions, so it sits above the vague score-1 anchor but below the multi-action score-3 anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It conveys a "what" (a debugging/resolution pipeline) but provides no "when"/"Use when..." trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2; it is not score 1 because the what is discernible, and not score 3 because the when is entirely absent.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Some relevant terms appear ("debugging", "resolution", "diagnose") but coverage is thin and jargon-heavy ("observability platforms", "AI-assisted debugging tools"), with no natural user phrasings or variations, so it matches the score-2 anchor of partial relevant keywords.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The incident/debugging niche is somewhat specific but the broad term "debugging" and lack of distinct triggers mean it could overlap with general coding/debugging skills, matching the score-2 "somewhat specific but could still overlap" anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 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: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/incident-response-smart-fix/SKILL.md
Commit: e63f7dd

Reviewed: about 23 hours 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.