CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comet-verify

Comet Classic 阶段 4 —— 验证 change、记录证据并驱动修复循环。

60

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-verify/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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 well-sequenced, highly actionable verification workflow with strong validation checkpoints and feedback loops, but it is dense with inline policy prose and lacks a bundled reference structure to offload detail. Splitting decision/policy rules into reference files would improve progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the dense policy/decision rules (e.g. the Step 1b uncertainty principles, the dirty-worktree attribution rules, the spec-drift A/B/C options) into reference files and keep SKILL.md as a sequenced overview with clearly signaled links.

Add the referenced `comet-classic/reference/*.md` files into a bundled `references/` directory so the progressive-disclosure structure is real rather than external-only.

Tighten the repeated "不得/禁止" caveats into a single consolidated constraints section to reduce token cost while preserving the rules.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly efficient — concrete CLI commands and rules with no padding or basic-concept explanation — matching the 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' anchor; not 5 because several policy caveats (repeated "不得/禁止" reminders) and verbose decision prose could be tightened.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, executable guidance — `comet state check`, `comet state transition <change-name> verify-fail`, `git diff --stat <base-ref>...HEAD`, `comet guard ... --apply` — covering common cases; not 5 because some flows are prose-heavy rather than scripted and use placeholders, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps are clearly sequenced (0a→0b→1→1b→2→2a/2b→3→exit) with explicit validation checkpoints (`comet state check ... verify`, `comet guard ... --apply`) and a feedback loop (verify-fail → /comet-build → retry, capped at 3 failures plus idempotency notes), matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops' anchor.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

It references external `comet-classic/reference/*.md` paths clearly by name but inlines substantial policy/decision logic that belongs in separate files, and no bundle files (references/scripts/assets) are present in the skill, matching the 'some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline' anchor; not 4 because of the heavy inlining and absence of a bundled reference structure.

3 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 and clearly distinct within its niche, but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps its completeness. Adding a natural-language trigger clause would meaningfully raise the score.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when a change is ready to be verified after the build phase, when recording verification evidence, or when driving a fix/retry loop.'

Expand natural trigger terms and synonyms (e.g. 'verify a change', 'record verification evidence', 'verification pass/fail', 'retry failed checks') so users and Claude can match it more naturally.

Keep the third-person voice but pair each concrete action with a trigger condition to fully satisfy both the 'what' and 'when' requirements.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("验证 change") and several concrete actions ("记录证据并驱动修复循环") — verify, record evidence, and drive repair loops — which matches the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor; not a 5 because the actions remain somewhat high-level rather than exhaustively enumerated.

4 / 5

Completeness

It gives a clear 'what' (verify change, record evidence, drive repair loop) but no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, and the guideline caps completeness at 3 when the 'when' is missing or only weakly implied; not 4 because there is no explicit when.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant domain terms ("验证", "记录证据", "修复循环") that a user might say, but misses common synonyms or variations, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor; not 4 due to thin natural-term coverage.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Comet Classic 阶段 4 —— 验证" carves out a clear niche tied to a specific phase and tool, minimizing overlap with other skills; matches the 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' anchor.

5 / 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.

Validation16 / 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.