review-arguments-dsl

Audits a command class's arguments DSL definition to verify it accurately maps Ruby call arguments to git CLI arguments in the correct order with correct DSL methods and modifiers.

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.github/skills/review-arguments-dsl/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

71%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 lean, concrete, and well-sequenced with an explicit verification chain, but it leans heavily on a CHECKLIST.md file that is absent from the bundle, breaking its primary progressive-disclosure references and leaving some workflow validation detail non-resolvable.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced CHECKLIST.md (or remove the dangling §1–§7 links) so the workflow's delegated validation steps are actually reachable.

Trim the inline 'DSL to CLI Mapping' bullets that duplicate the CHECKLIST.md mapping table, keeping only the few rules the agent needs at a glance.

Inline the key validation checkpoint (trace Ruby call → bound argument → git CLI and compare to the man page) into the workflow step itself rather than only referencing it, so the skill stands alone if CHECKLIST.md is unavailable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and assumes competence — compact bullet points for each DSL behavior with no padding about what a DSL or git is. It is not a 5 because the inline 'DSL to CLI Mapping' section duplicates material also pointed to via CHECKLIST.md links and could be trimmed slightly.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete guidance throughout: specific file paths ('lib/git/commands/{command}.rb'), exact fetch URLs, and worked DSL examples ('flag_option :verbose` → `--verbose'). It is not a 5 because the workflow's executable detail is largely delegated to the referenced CHECKLIST.md sections rather than fully inline.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered six-step sequence with an explicit verification chain ('Ruby call → bound argument → expected git CLI') and per-entry validation against the man page. It is not a 5 because the validation detail and error-recovery feedback loop live in CHECKLIST.md rather than being stated inline.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is clean (TOC, sectioned headings, one-level-deep links to CHECKLIST.md), but CHECKLIST.md is referenced repeatedly (§1–§7) and does not exist in the bundle, so core navigation targets are broken. It is not a 2 because the in-skill structure is genuinely well organized; it is not a 4 because a primary referenced file is missing and substantial reference material is inlined.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

58%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 third-person, specific, and clearly distinguishable, but omits any 'Use when...' trigger guidance, capping completeness and leaving trigger-term coverage at a technical-jargon level rather than natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing or auditing a command class's arguments DSL definition against the git man page.'

Include a natural-language trigger phrase or synonym (e.g. 'reviewing argument mappings', 'verifying DSL-to-CLI parity') to broaden trigger-term coverage beyond technical jargon.

Optionally mention the verification chain (Ruby call → bound argument → git CLI) to signal scope and further sharpen distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('command class's arguments DSL definition') and several concrete actions — audits the mapping, verifies correct order, DSL methods, and modifiers — with only minor gaps (e.g., YARD parity and completeness not mentioned). It sits at anchor 4 ('lists several specific actions; minor gaps') rather than 5 because coverage is not fully comprehensive.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is stated clearly ('Audits a command class's arguments DSL definition to verify...') but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 3. It is not a 2 because the 'what' is concrete rather than vague.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant terms like 'arguments DSL', 'command class', and 'git CLI arguments' are present and natural for this codebase's maintainers, but they lean technical and lack common synonyms or variations a user might naturally say. It is not a 4 because several natural trigger phrasings are missing.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is specific — auditing the arguments DSL mapping Ruby calls to git CLI args — and distinct from sibling skills (command-implementation, test-conventions, yard-documentation), with only minor overlap risk. It is not a 5 because it lives in a family of closely related command-class skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
relative_links	Relative link issues: 9 missing, 4 suspicious	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: ruby-git/ruby-git
Path: .github/skills/review-arguments-dsl/SKILL.md
Commit: ae4ef0e

Reviewed: about 23 hours 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.