team-collaboration-issue

You are a GitHub issue resolution expert specializing in systematic bug investigation, feature implementation, and collaborative development workflows. Your expertise spans issue triage, root cause an

Quality

33%

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/team-collaboration-issue/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

17%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 a thin templated scaffold: it repeats the description, fills sections with boilerplate, gives only abstract instructions, and points to a resource file that does not exist. It provides little executable guidance and no real workflow with validation.

Suggestions

Replace the generic instruction bullets with a concrete, sequenced workflow (triage -> reproduce -> write failing test -> branch -> implement -> validate -> open PR) with explicit validation checkpoints.

Remove the duplicated opening paragraph and the templated use/don't-use boilerplate, or rewrite them with specific triggers and boundaries.

Either create `resources/implementation-playbook.md` with the promised patterns/examples or remove the broken reference.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The opening paragraph duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim, and the "Use this skill when" / "Do not use this skill when" sections are templated boilerplate that mechanically repeats "github issue resolution expert" five times, making it noticeably padded rather than lean.	2 / 5
Actionability	The Instructions are universal abstractions ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs", "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") with no concrete commands, code, or domain-specific steps, matching the anchor for entirely vague guidance that only describes rather than instructs.	1 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is no real sequenced workflow, only a generic bullet list; for operations involving branch management and PR creation the only validation mention is the abstract "validate outcomes", with no checkpoints, fitting the rough-sequence-with-many-gaps-and-no-validation anchor.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body references `resources/implementation-playbook.md` in both Instructions and Resources, but no such file exists in the bundle, so the signaled reference is broken; the section structure is minimal and the only disclosure pointer is non-existent.	2 / 5
	Total	7 / 20 Passed

Description

48%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 identifies a clear niche and a few concrete activities, but is written in second person, is truncated mid-sentence ("root cause an"), and lacks any explicit "when to use" trigger guidance, which caps completeness. It is recognizable but generic and incomplete.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person and finish the truncated sentence so the full capability list is intact.

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause with natural trigger phrases (e.g., resolving GitHub issues, fixing bug reports, implementing feature requests, opening pull requests).

Replace generic expertise language with concrete actions the skill performs (triage issue, reproduce, write failing test, branch, commit, open PR).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and a few process actions ("systematic bug investigation, feature implementation", "issue triage", "root cause an"), but the description is truncated mid-word and the actions are high-level; the second-person voice ("You are...") triggers a -1 specificity penalty, pulling a borderline-3 down to 2.	2 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does ("GitHub issue resolution expert specializing in...") but provides no "Use when..." clause or explicit trigger guidance, and the text is truncated; per the guideline a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains several relevant natural terms ("GitHub issue", "bug investigation", "feature implementation", "pull request") but is missing common variations/synonyms and does not phrase them as user triggers, fitting the anchor with some relevant keywords but incomplete coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"GitHub issue resolution" is a reasonably distinct niche with its own triggers and only minor overlap risk with general git/coding skills, matching the "mostly distinct" anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 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/team-collaboration-issue/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.