CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

agent-analyze-code-quality

Agent skill for analyze-code-quality - invoke with $agent-analyze-code-quality

54

1.49x
Quality

30%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

94%

1.49x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/agent-analyze-code-quality/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is agent-analyze-code-quality in ruvnet/claude-flow

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

32%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 skill body mixes a verbose YAML configuration block with a moderately concrete analysis guide, but lacks a sequenced workflow, executable steps, or any external references. The result is padded and only partially actionable.

Suggestions

Remove or relocate the embedded YAML config block from the body; it is metadata, not instruction, and inflates the token budget without guiding Claude.

Replace the static responsibilities list with a sequenced analysis workflow (scan files -> flag smells by criteria -> compile report) with an explicit validation step.

Add a brief worked example showing the tool calls or commands used to inspect a file, so the guidance is executable rather than purely descriptive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body opens with a large embedded YAML config block (triggers, capabilities, constraints, hooks, examples) that is config metadata rather than instructions, adding substantial padding before the actual guidance.

2 / 5

Actionability

Concrete criteria are given (e.g. 'Long methods (>50 lines)', an output report template), but there are no executable commands, tool-usage steps, or worked examples showing how to run an analysis.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 'Key responsibilities' are categories rather than a sequenced process, and there is no analysis workflow with validation checkpoints or error-handling feedback loops.

2 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All content is inlined in one file with no bundle references; the monolithic YAML config block that opens the body is content that does not belong as instruction and is not well organized for navigation.

2 / 5

Total

9

/

20

Passed

Description

28%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 a templated placeholder that names the skill but does not explain what it concretely does or when it should be triggered. It fails to answer either the 'what' or 'when' question with any specificity.

Suggestions

Replace the templated description with concrete actions, e.g. 'Identify code smells, evaluate complexity, and suggest refactoring opportunities in source files.'

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when the user asks for a code review, code quality analysis, or refactor suggestions.'

Include natural trigger terms users would actually say (e.g. 'code review', 'technical debt', 'code smells') instead of the skill's internal identifier.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('analyze-code-quality') but lists no concrete actions, reading as a templated label rather than a statement of capabilities.

2 / 5

Completeness

It offers only a vague 'what' (an 'agent skill for analyze-code-quality') and entirely lacks a 'Use when...' clause specifying when Claude should invoke it.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces only the skill's own identifier ('analyze-code-quality', 'invoke with $agent-analyze-code-quality') and omits the natural phrases a user would actually say such as 'code review' or 'find code smells'.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named code-quality niche is somewhat specific, but the boilerplate phrasing gives little to distinguish it from other code-analysis skills, leaving moderate overlap risk.

3 / 5

Total

9

/

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
ruvnet/ruflo
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.