CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comet-hotfix

Use when 用户要修复已有行为 bug,且不新增 capability、不需要完整设计;也用于恢复 hotfix workflow。

61

Quality

71%

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 ./eval/local/skills/benchmarks/040-beta/comet-hotfix/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%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.

A well-structured orchestrator skill with an explicit, validated multi-step workflow and concrete executable commands plus clear delegation to sibling skills and reference docs. Its main weakness is moderate redundancy (escalation signals and auto-transition logic each appear in two places) that slightly inflates the token budget.

Suggestions

Consolidate the escalation-signal list into the 升级判定 section and have other sections reference it once, instead of restating the signals in 连续执行模式 and Step 3.

Merge 自动衔接下一阶段 into 连续执行模式 (or vice versa) so the auto_transition: false behavior and `node "$COMET_STATE" next` semantics live in one place.

Move the per-phase guard command examples into a short reference table so the narrative steps stay lean.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence, but escalation signals are restated across multiple sections and the auto-transition logic is covered twice (连续执行模式 and 自动衔接下一阶段), which could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready shell commands (node "$COMET_STATE" init/check/next/transition, node "$COMET_GUARD" ... --apply) and explicit Skill-loading directives are given throughout, with only minor gaps where specifics are delegated to referenced skills.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 6-step process with explicit validation checkpoints (root-cause elimination check, build→verify and verify→archive guards, archive final confirmation) and feedback loops (systematic-debugging on failure, root-cause-not-eliminated loops back to Step 2).

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good section structure with clearly signaled one-level-deep references to comet/reference/*.md (scripts, context-recovery, dirty-worktree, debug-gate, decision-point, auto-transition); minor gaps from inline duplication of auto-transition detail and no local bundle files to verify reference targets.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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.

A focused, trigger-explicit description that clearly scopes the hotfix preset via concrete boundary conditions and an explicit 'Use when' clause. Its main weakness is that the actual workflow actions are implied rather than stated, keeping specificity and completeness just below the top anchor.

Suggestions

Add one short clause naming the core actions (e.g. 'runs a streamlined open → build → verify → archive fix workflow') so the 'what' is explicit, not just the 'when'.

Include a couple of natural synonym triggers (e.g. 'patch', '紧急修复', 'bug fix') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Optionally note the escalation escape hatch ('upgrades to full /comet when a qualitative signal is hit') to sharpen distinctiveness from the full comet workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (修复已有行为 bug) and concrete boundary conditions (不新增 capability、不需要完整设计), but the actual actions performed are only weakly implied via '恢复 hotfix workflow' rather than enumerated.

3 / 5

Completeness

It has an explicit 'Use when' clause with concrete trigger conditions (the 'when') and a stated 'what' (hotfix workflow / bug fix), but the 'what' is somewhat implicit since the open→build→verify→archive actions live in the body, not the description.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing terms like '修复已有行为 bug', 'hotfix workflow' are present and would be said by a user, though synonym coverage is limited and a few common phrasings are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The no-new-capability / existing-bug-only framing carves a clear niche distinct from full /comet design, with only minor overlap risk against closely related comet skills (comet-build, comet-tweak).

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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
rpamis/comet
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.