infra-system
Infra System Agent. 서버 관리, OS 튜닝, 모니터링을 담당합니다.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:shaul1991/shaul-agents-plugin --skill infra-system44
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
22%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is too brief and vague to effectively guide skill selection. It names a general domain (infrastructure/system administration) but lacks specific actions, natural trigger terms users would say, and critically missing any 'when to use' guidance. The Korean language is fine but the content needs substantial improvement.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when the user asks about server configuration, system performance, CPU/memory monitoring, or OS-level troubleshooting'
List specific concrete actions such as 'Configure system services, analyze performance metrics, set up monitoring alerts, tune kernel parameters, manage disk space'
Include natural trigger terms users would say: 'server slow', 'high CPU', 'disk full', 'memory usage', 'system logs', 'process management', 'cron jobs'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague language like '서버 관리' (server management), 'OS 튜닝' (OS tuning), and '모니터링' (monitoring) without listing concrete actions. No specific operations like 'configure nginx', 'analyze logs', or 'set up alerts' are mentioned. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Only provides a weak 'what' (manages servers, tunes OS, monitors) with no 'when' clause. There is no explicit guidance on when Claude should select this skill, missing any 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant domain keywords (서버/server, OS, 모니터링/monitoring) but lacks natural variations users might say like 'CPU usage', 'disk space', 'memory leak', 'performance issues', 'system health', or specific tool names. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The terms are somewhat specific to infrastructure/DevOps domain, but 'server management' and 'monitoring' are broad enough to potentially conflict with other DevOps, cloud, or system administration skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a role description rather than actionable guidance. While it's concise and identifies output locations, it completely lacks the concrete instructions, commands, examples, and workflows needed for Claude to actually perform server management, OS tuning, monitoring configuration, or security patching tasks.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable examples for each responsibility (e.g., sample Ansible playbook snippets for OS tuning, specific commands for package management)
Define step-by-step workflows with validation checkpoints for critical operations like security patching (e.g., backup -> patch -> verify -> rollback if needed)
Include references to detailed guides for complex tasks (e.g., 'For monitoring setup, see [MONITORING.md](infra/docs/MONITORING.md)')
Add specific tool usage instructions (which monitoring tools, which package managers, what security scanning tools to use)
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is extremely lean with no unnecessary explanations. Every line serves a purpose - role definition, responsibilities, and output locations are stated without padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides no concrete guidance, commands, or executable examples. It only describes what the agent does at a high level without any specific instructions on how to perform OS tuning, package management, monitoring setup, or security patching. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflows are defined. The skill lists responsibilities but provides no sequence of steps, validation checkpoints, or process guidance for any of the mentioned tasks. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill points to output locations (infra/ansible/, scripts/system/) which suggests some structure, but there are no explicit references to detailed documentation or guides for the complex tasks mentioned. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.