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

23%

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

10%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 dominated by a leaked, inlined '[Extended thinking:]' wall of text that should not be present, paired with generic templated instructions that provide no executable guidance. Its single external reference points to a non-existent file, so progressive disclosure is broken.

Suggestions

Delete the inlined '[Extended thinking: ...]' block entirely; move any genuinely useful workflow detail into a referenced file.

Replace the generic Instructions bullets with concrete, executable steps (specific commands, agent-invocation patterns, or a real four-phase checklist with validation checkpoints).

Either create 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' or remove the dangling reference so progressive disclosure resolves to real content.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body opens with an enormous inlined '[Extended thinking: ...]' paragraph that exhaustively explains the workflow, enumerates tools (GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Sentry, DataDog, OpenTelemetry), and details four phases — a severely verbose, padded wall of text explaining concepts Claude already knows.	1 / 5
Actionability	The Instructions are generic boilerplate ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs', 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes', 'Provide actionable steps and verification') with no concrete code, commands, or specific steps; the thinking block only describes a process rather than instructing.	1 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough four-phase sequence (analysis, root cause, fix, verification) is buried in prose inside the leaked thinking block, but the steps are poorly defined and not presented as an actionable sequenced workflow; the actual Instructions section has no sequence.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The one-level reference to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' is well-signaled, but the referenced file does not exist (no resources/ directory), and the giant inlined thinking block is content that clearly does not belong in SKILL.md at all.	2 / 5
	Total	6 / 20 Passed

Description

37%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 is malformed: it begins with a leaked '[Extended thinking:' artifact and is truncated mid-word, leaving an incomplete, buzzword-heavy statement of intent. It conveys a rough 'what' but no 'when' and lacks natural trigger phrasing.

Suggestions

Remove the leaked '[Extended thinking:' prefix and replace the description with a clean, complete sentence in third person.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when debugging production issues, performing root cause analysis, or fixing bugs and incidents').

Cut buzzwords ('sophisticated', 'leverages') and list 2-3 concrete actions concisely.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('debugging and resolution pipeline') and a couple of actions ('diagnose and resolve production issues', 'root cause analysis'), but it is truncated mid-word ('res'), prefixed by a leaked '[Extended thinking:' artifact, and padded with buzzwords ('sophisticated', 'leverages'), placing it below the midpoint.	2 / 5
Completeness	A 'what' is discernible (a debugging/resolution pipeline for production issues), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Some relevant terms appear ('debugging', 'production issues', 'resolve'), but they are wrapped in jargon ('sophisticated debugging and resolution pipeline', 'AI-assisted debugging tools', 'observability platforms') and the truncation cuts off before any natural trigger phrasing, missing common synonyms users would actually say.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Intelligent issue resolution with multi-agent orchestration' is somewhat specific but very broad in practice and could overlap with general debugging, incident-response, and coding skills, so it sits at the midpoint.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 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/incident-response-smart-fix/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.