CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

subsystem-summary-of-historywork

read this skill for a token-efficient summary of the historywork subsystem

46

Quality

48%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/subsystem-summary-of-historywork/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%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 a well-structured, information-dense architectural summary that assumes reader competence, but as a passive reference it lacks executable guidance and offloads nothing to separate files. It works as a token-efficient map of the subsystem but does not instruct action.

Suggestions

Add a brief 'When modifying historywork' section with concrete steps (e.g., how to add a new RunCommandWork subclass or a new BatchWork, with a minimal code skeleton) to raise actionability.

Move the per-class function/data inventories into a reference file (e.g. references/classes.md) and keep SKILL.md as an overview pointing one level deep, improving progressive disclosure.

If the summary is meant to guide changes, include a validation checkpoint (e.g., 'run the history work tests via ...') so the workflow has an explicit verification step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is information-dense — each line documents concrete symbols (classes, functions, data members) and assumes Claude's competence with the Work framework, with only minor narrative padding in section intros.

4 / 5

Actionability

It describes the subsystem in detail (real file names, function signatures, data flows) but provides no executable commands, code, or concrete steps for Claude to perform — it is a passive reference rather than instructions.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Data flows (Publish, Download/Catchup, Verified Hash Chain) are clearly sequenced, but these are descriptions of system behavior with no validation checkpoints, since no operation is actually performed by Claude.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The document has clear section headers and good internal organization, but it is a ~360-line monolith with no external reference files; per-class detail is fully inlined rather than split into deeper files.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

46%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 clearly states what the skill produces but omits any explicit 'when to use it' trigger guidance, and its keywords are internal jargon rather than natural user phrasing. It is narrowly scoped to a distinct subsystem, limiting conflict risk.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user triggers, e.g. 'Use when the user asks about historywork, history archive publish/download, catchup work units, or stellar-core history tasks.'

Replace the meta phrasing 'read this skill for' with a third-person capability statement such as 'Summarizes the historywork subsystem's work units for stellar-core history archive publish and catchup.'

Surface concrete actions and synonyms beyond 'summary' — e.g. 'publishing ledger history, downloading/verifying archives, catchup' — so the description reads as a capability list.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('historywork subsystem') and one action ('summary') but the phrasing 'read this skill for' is a meta-instruction rather than a concrete capability, leaving coverage minimal.

3 / 5

Completeness

A clear 'what' ('token-efficient summary of the historywork subsystem') is present, but there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent 'when' guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'historywork subsystem', 'token-efficient', and 'summary' are technical jargon a user would rarely say naturally; no common synonyms or user-facing phrases are present.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named 'historywork subsystem' is a specific niche unlikely to clash with unrelated skills, though the generic word 'summary' and weak triggers leave minor overlap risk with other summary/reference skills.

4 / 5

Total

12

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
stellar/stellar-core
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.