Name: agent-issue-tracker
Rating: 54.6 (1 reviews)
Author: ruvnet

Blog Docs Log inGet started

agent-issue-tracker

Agent skill for issue-tracker - invoke with $agent-issue-tracker

2.61x

Quality

35%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

81%

2.61x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/agent-issue-tracker/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

42%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 content shows a real workflow with detailed tool-call examples, but is undermined by malformed structure (a second YAML block in the body), pseudocode rather than executable examples, hardcoded repo-specific noise, batch operations without validation, and no offloading of large templates into bundle files.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicated YAML frontmatter block and the restated Capabilities/Metrics sections; keep a lean overview in SKILL.md.

Replace pseudocode tool-call blocks with executable examples and strip hardcoded noise (specific repos, issue numbers, agent IDs, fake progress percentages); fix corrupted strings like 'repo:ruvnet$ruv-FANN'.

Add validation checkpoints to batch workflows (e.g. verify issues were created with 'gh issue list' before storing state) and move the large issue templates into a references/ file linked from SKILL.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body pads heavily: a duplicated YAML frontmatter block, capabilities restated twice, marketing fluff ('Intelligent issue management', 'ruv-swarm integration'), a Metrics/Analytics section with no actionable content, and hardcoded noise (repo 'ruvnet/ruv-FANN', issue 54, agent IDs, '89%').	2 / 5
Actionability	There is concrete guidance (tool names, parameters, issue bodies, labels, gh CLI commands), but the examples are pseudocode tool invocations rather than executable code, and several contain corrupted syntax ('repo:ruvnet$ruv-FANN', ':owner/:repo' placeholders).	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Usage patterns give a rough sequence (init swarm, spawn agents, create issue, orchestrate tracking), but the batch issue-creation workflow creates multiple issues with no validation or verification steps, capping this dimension at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section headers provide some structure, but the ~320-line body is monolithic: the two large issue templates and metrics material belong in separate bundle files, and no references/scripts/assets files exist to offload them.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 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 stub: it identifies the domain but gives no concrete capabilities, no natural trigger terms, and no usage conditions. It would rarely be selected at the right moment and is largely indistinguishable from generic project-management skills.

Suggestions

State concrete actions in third person, e.g. 'Creates GitHub issues from smart templates, posts automated progress updates, and coordinates issue labels and milestones across repositories.'

Add an explicit trigger clause: 'Use when creating, updating, or organizing GitHub issues, or when coordinating issue tracking for a project.'

Include natural user phrases like 'GitHub issues', 'bug tracker', 'create an issue', and 'issue labels' so the description matches how users actually ask.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description only says 'Agent skill for issue-tracker - invoke with $agent-issue-tracker' — it names the domain but lists no concrete actions (no issue creation, tracking, or labeling verbs), sitting between the 'no concrete actions' and 'names domain, minimal actions' anchors.	2 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is only vaguely implied by the skill name and there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger guidance, so it fails both the explicit-what and explicit-when tests (the missing-when cap at 3 is easily met below it).	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Only the generic keyword 'issue-tracker' appears alongside the internal jargon token '$agent-issue-tracker'; natural phrases a user would say ('create an issue', 'track bugs', 'GitHub issues') are absent.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'issue-tracker' denotes a recognizable niche, but with no distinct trigger phrases the description could overlap with any GitHub project-management or task-tracking skill.	3 / 5
	Total	9 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/ruflo
Path: .agents/skills/agent-issue-tracker/SKILL.md
Commit: b14c79e

Reviewed: 3 days 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.