CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

comet-classic

Comet Classic 工作流入口。当用户明确调用 /comet-classic、要求启动或恢复 Classic,或 resume-probe 返回 auto_resume、确认唯一可恢复的未归档 Classic change 时使用。

Quality

70%

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-zh/comet-classic/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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.

This is a disciplined, information-dense router skill: it sequences the five-phase workflow, embeds hard validation gates and error-recovery rules, and delegates details to per-trigger reference files. Its main weaknesses are rule repetition across sections 1-3 that could be consolidated, and inconsistent reference path forms combined with referenced files that are absent from the bundle.

Suggestions

Consolidate the continuation/state-requery rules (currently restated in §1, §2, and §3) into a single rule, leaving each section to reference it — this would cut noticeable token duplication without losing behavior.

Unify reference path forms to one base (e.g., always reference/scripts.md or always comet-classic/reference/scripts.md) so the agent resolves paths unambiguously.

State the mainline happy path up front (resolve workspace → select change → load the phase skill → follow continuation) before the edge-case conditionals, so the primary sequence is legible without parsing dozens of branches.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is extremely dense with no concept padding, but the same rule clusters are restated across sections: continuation/state-requery rules appear in §1 ("选择结果已包含…直接继续;只有缺少信息…才运行 comet state next"), §2 ("同一组任务复用命令结果和已有上下文…才重新查询"), and §3 ("没有可复用的状态信息…才重新查询"), and context-recovery triggers are given at three separate points. This fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'; not 2 since nothing is padded or explains concepts Claude already knows.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable commands appear throughout (comet classic workspace resolve <change-name> --json, comet state select <change-name> --json, comet resume-probe . --stdin --json, comet state restore <change-name> --confirmed) alongside explicit directives ("使用 Skill 工具加载 comet-open 技能。禁止跳过此步骤") and hard stop conditions. Not 5 because a substantial portion of the guidance is conditional routing whose actual procedures live in external reference files rather than here.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence (确定目标与工作区 → 载入当前阶段 → 继续完成) with explicit validation ("只有实际运行过测试或构建,才能声称完成相应检查", host-check before approving Open, debug-gate "先调查再修复") and error-recovery loops ("入口错误与恢复" → report the original error and apply recovery rules). It falls short of 5 because several checkpoints — host-check's actual content, 预设范围复核's checks — are signaled by reference rather than specified inline, leaving minor validation gaps.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body works as an overview router with well-signaled, one-level-deep references gated by explicit read conditions ("需要状态字段含义时读 comet-classic/reference/comet-yaml-fields.md…其余参考只在上方触发条件满足时读取"). It falls short of 5 because no referenced files exist in this bundle to verify, and path bases are inconsistent (comet-classic/reference/scripts.md vs reference/scripts.md vs ../comet/reference/host-check.md), which makes navigation error-prone.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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 and well-structured trigger clause (what to do when invoked, when starting/resuming, and when resume-probe returns auto_resume) and is highly distinctive, but the capability statement is a bare "workflow entry point" with no concrete actions. It would benefit from one sentence summarizing what the skill actually orchestrates.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 concrete capabilities after "工作流入口", e.g., that it routes work through the Open → Design → Build → Verify → Archive phases and binds the change workspace, so the 'what' is as strong as the 'when'.

Include natural trigger synonyms users might say, such as "继续/重开 Classic" or "Classic 工作流", and drop or de-emphasize the machine-facing 'resume-probe 返回 auto_resume' phrasing in favor of user-observable conditions.

State the outcome the entry point produces (e.g., dispatches to the correct phase skill) so a reader can distinguish invoking this skill from invoking /comet-open or /comet-design directly.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The only stated capability is "Comet Classic 工作流入口" (workflow entry point), which names the domain without listing any concrete actions such as orchestrating phases or creating artifacts. This matches the anchor 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic', not level 3 which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: a what ("Comet Classic 工作流入口") and an explicit when ("当…时使用" with three concrete triggers). Not 5 because the what is thin — it never says what the entry point actually does; not 3 because the when is fully explicit rather than weakly implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"明确调用 /comet-classic" and "要求启动或恢复 Classic" are natural user phrases, but "resume-probe 返回 auto_resume" is machine-output jargon rather than a user utterance, and no synonyms or variations (e.g., 继续, Classic 工作流) appear. Coverage sits between 'some relevant keywords' (3) and 'good keyword coverage' (4), noticeably below the midpoint.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is anchored to a named system (Comet Classic), an explicit slash command, and narrow conditions ("唯一可恢复的未归档 Classic change"), giving it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against other skills.

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-zh/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.