CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

comet-classic

Comet Classic workflow entry. Use when the user explicitly invokes /comet-classic, asks to start or resume Classic, or resume-probe returns auto_resume for one unambiguously recoverable active Classic change.

Quality

69%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./assets/skills/comet-classic/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 dense, well-sequenced orchestrator overview with genuine validation checkpoints and concrete CLI commands, and it mostly resists padding. Its main weaknesses are unresolvable, inconsistently-prefixed reference paths (with no reference files shipped in the bundle) and repeated authorization rules that inflate the token cost of an otherwise lean document.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced files in the bundle and use one consistent path convention — the same document is cited as both `comet-classic/reference/scripts.md` and `reference/scripts.md`, and `../comet/reference/host-check.md` points outside the skill.

Consolidate the authorization protocol ("ask only when a new decision is needed", existing-authority reuse) into the single decision-point section instead of restating it in sections 1, 2, and 3.

Split the overloaded multi-clause sentences (e.g., the state-transfer and restore-consent paragraph in section 1) into discrete steps so each instruction carries one condition.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is telegraphic and free of concept over-explanation — every line is instruction (e.g., "Only `auto_resume` enters automatically; for `ask_user` ask by `reason`"). It falls short of 5 because the authorization rule "ask only when a new decision is needed" is restated nearly verbatim across sections 1-3 and several overloaded run-on sentences (e.g., the state-transfer paragraph) could be tightened, fitting 'Efficient; minor instances... that could be trimmed'.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete commands exist (`comet classic workspace resolve <change-name> --json`, `comet state select`, `comet resume-probe . --stdin --json`, `comet state restore <change-name> --confirmed`) plus an explicit phase-to-skill routing table, but many key procedures (host capability check, decision-point protocol, recovery procedure) are deferred to reference files that are not present in the bundle, and reference paths are inconsistently prefixed. This matches 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' rather than 4, where gaps would be minor.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear three-step sequence (resolve target/workspace, load current phase, complete authorized work) with a phase-to-skill table, and validation checkpoints are present: phase exit checks, Guards ("do not bypass phase Guards"), "Claim a test or build result only after actually running it", and archive-time verification of "actual Git state". Not 5 because checkpoints are scattered through dense prose rather than presented as explicit validate-then-proceed steps, leaving minor validation gaps.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The overview-plus-triggered-references design is sound ("Read only sections needed for the current action", "Read other references only when their triggers above apply", one level deep), but the bundle contains no reference files at all, and the ~12 cited paths use three inconsistent conventions (`reference/...`, `comet-classic/reference/...`, `../comet/reference/...`), so navigation cannot be relied on. This fits 'Some structure but could be better organized' despite references being clearly signaled.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 has an explicit, well-conditioned trigger clause and minimal conflict risk, but the capability statement is a single nominal phrase that tells the reader nothing about what the workflow actually does. Adding one sentence of concrete capabilities (five phases, OpenSpec specs, Superpowers methods) would lift specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add 2-3 concrete capabilities after 'Comet Classic workflow entry' (e.g., 'Orchestrates the Open, Design, Build, Verify, Archive phases using OpenSpec specifications and Superpowers planning/review methods') so the 'what' matches the explicit 'when'.

Soften the jargon-heavy trigger 'resume-probe returns auto_resume' or pair it with a natural user phrasing like 'or asks to continue an in-progress Classic change'.

Include common trigger synonyms such as 'continue', 'reopen', or 'Classic workflow' to broaden natural keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Comet Classic workflow entry" names the domain but offers no concrete actions — the five phases, spec management, and design/build/verify work the body performs are absent, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is not a 3 because no concrete capability action is listed, and not a 1 because the domain is explicitly named.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both halves are present: 'what' via "Comet Classic workflow entry" and an explicit 'when' via "Use when the user explicitly invokes /comet-classic, asks to start or resume Classic, or resume-probe returns auto_resume". It is not 5 because the 'what' is a bare designation without any concrete capability statements, fitting 'Has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific' with the weakness inverted onto 'what'.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include "invokes /comet-classic", "asks to start or resume Classic", covering the main natural phrasings, but "resume-probe returns auto_resume" is internal machine-state jargon and common user variations ("continue", "reopen", "Classic workflow") are missing. This sits between 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations' (3) and 'Good keyword coverage' (4), closer to 3 because a key trigger clause is programmatic rather than user-spoken.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche: an explicit slash command, a named workflow ("Classic"), and a precise programmatic condition ("auto_resume for one unambiguously recoverable active Classic change"). Triggers are specific enough that overlap with sibling comet skills is minimal, matching 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'.

5 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 missing, 2 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

rpamis/comet

Path

assets/skills/comet-classic/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.