fix-codesign-error

Slash command that inspects a macOS signing or entitlement failure and explains the minimum fix path. Invoke explicitly with /fix-codesign-error — this skill never self-triggers.

Quality

80%

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 ./.agents/skills/fix-codesign-error/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

86%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, well-structured, and actionable for a simple single-purpose skill, with no padding and appropriately scoped sections. The main gap is the absence of a composed, copy-paste diagnostic command sequence and an explicit validate-fix-retry loop.

Suggestions

Add a short composed example showing the actual diagnostic command flow (e.g., `codesign -dv --verbose=4 App.app` then `spctl -a -vv App.app` then `codesign -d --entitlements - App.app`) to move actionability toward fully-executable.

In the repair-plan mode, include an explicit validate->fix->revalidate checkpoint so the workflow shows an error-recovery feedback loop.

Optionally show a sample `plutil -p` invocation for reading entitlements from a built binary to complement the guardrail mention.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: it never explains what codesigning is and every section (Arguments, Workflow, Guardrails) earns its place with no padding, matching the score-5 anchor.	5 / 5
Actionability	Names specific verifiable commands ("codesign -d", "spctl", "plutil") and concrete failure classes to check, but only lists commands in a guardrail rather than composing a copy-paste diagnostic sequence, leaving minor gaps versus the fully-executable score-5 anchor.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear four-step sequence is present and the skill is inspect/repair-plan oriented (not destructive execution), so the destructive-cap does not apply; step 4 mentions a validation command but lacks an explicit validate->fix->retry loop, placing it just below the score-5 anchor.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	This is a simple single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no need for external references, and it is organized into clear sections (Arguments, Workflow, Guardrails), which per the simple-skills scoring note merits a 5.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

73%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 specific, well-scoped, and clearly distinct, with explicit invocation guidance that prevents accidental triggering. It would improve by adding a natural "Use when..." clause listing the user situations (notarization failures, provisioning issues) to round out trigger completeness.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when the user reports a codesign, notarization, or provisioning failure on macOS' clause so the when-trigger is framed as user situations rather than only invocation mechanics.

Broaden trigger terms to include common synonyms users say ('notarization', 'provisioning profile', 'hardened runtime') alongside 'signing' and 'entitlement'.

Optionally enumerate one or two more concrete capabilities (e.g., 'reads entitlements from the binary', 'validates with spctl') to lift specificity from 3 to 4.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and two concrete actions ("inspects" the failure, "explains the minimum fix path") but does not enumerate several specific actions, matching the score-3 anchor rather than the multi-action score-4 anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does (inspects and explains the minimum fix path) and provides explicit when-trigger guidance ("Invoke explicitly with /fix-codesign-error"), but the when-clause is phrased as invocation mechanics rather than the concrete user situations a "Use when..." clause would name.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms users would say ("signing", "entitlement failure", "codesign" via the command name) plus explicit invocation guidance, but misses common synonyms like "notarization" or "provisioning" that users also mention, so it falls just short of comprehensive coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (macOS signing/entitlement failures) with a distinct command trigger and an explicit "never self-triggers" boundary, giving minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 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: robinebers/openusage
Path: .agents/skills/fix-codesign-error/SKILL.md
Commit: 2270d5f

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.