CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

retire-legacy-distribution-surface

Pattern for safely removing an obsolete package/distribution surface without breaking the surviving release path.

53

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is lean, well-organized, and free of unnecessary concept explanation, scoring well on conciseness and progressive disclosure. It loses points on actionability (abstract steps vs executable commands) and workflow clarity (no explicit validation checkpoint for destructive deletions).

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the Pattern, e.g. after removal run the build/CI to confirm only the surviving artifact is produced and re-validate the replacement path before finishing.

Make the Pattern steps more executable by including concrete commands or file references alongside the example (e.g. the git rm command and the specific release.yml job names to delete).

Add a verification step that searches operational files for stale references before declaring the retirement complete.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence; it avoids explaining what packages or release workflows are and every line (Context, Pattern, Why, Example) earns its place without padding.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete example file paths and steps (e.g. 'Delete legacy packages/excel-*-skill directories', 'Remove the matching release.yml populate/upload/publish steps') but the Pattern itself is abstract guidance rather than copy-paste commands, leaving it between anchor 2 and 3.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The seven-step Pattern is clearly sequenced, but for destructive batch operations like directory and CI deletion it lacks an explicit validate-then-re-validate checkpoint or feedback loop, which the scoring notes cap at 2.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

For a short skill with no bundle files, it is well-organized into clear sections (Context, Pattern, Why, Example) with no nested references, meeting the simple-skill bar for a 3.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 communicates a clear niche but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and only partially enumerates concrete actions, capping completeness and specificity at 2. Trigger term coverage is relevant but missing natural variations.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when retiring, deprecating, or removing an obsolete package or distribution/publishing surface.'

Enumerate the concrete actions in the description (e.g. 'remove legacy package directories, strip CI publish/upload steps, simplify build scripts, preserve the surviving release path').

Include natural user phrasings like 'retire', 'deprecate', 'clean up old publishing' to improve trigger-term coverage and distinctiveness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names a domain (removing a package/distribution surface) and a concrete action (removing without breaking the surviving path), but does not list multiple distinct concrete actions, sitting between anchor 2 and 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill does but has no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which the guidelines cap at 2; the 'when' is only implied via the word 'Pattern'.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It uses some relevant terms ('package', 'distribution surface', 'release path') but omits natural variations a user would say ('retire', 'deprecate', 'remove old package', 'clean up legacy publishing'), so coverage is partial rather than comprehensive.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (retiring a distribution surface) is fairly specific, but the phrasing could overlap with general packaging/release-maintenance skills, so it is not yet a clear distinct trigger.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
sbroenne/mcp-server-excel
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.