CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

1-triage-issues

Scan all open issues and PRs in stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server and rank them by urgency (severity, user impact, age, references), implementation quality (for PRs — mergeability, CI, diff scope, locale-independence, test coverage), and contributor track record (prior merged PRs, review quality, response cadence). Use when the user asks "what should I tackle first as core maintainer", "which PRs are production-ready", "triage backlog", "scan open issues", or any maintainer-prioritisation question about this repo. Outputs a ranked list with rationale per item, not a fix.

75

Quality

94%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%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.

A tight, executable maintainer-triage playbook: real `gh` commands, explicit scoring rubrics, and hard-fail validation gates that prevent premature merge recommendations. Structure is clean and self-contained; the only gap is that nothing is offloaded to reference files, so progressive disclosure is good rather than exemplary.

Suggestions

Tighten the prose in Phase 2/3 bullets (e.g. the 'Stale-but-high-severity...' and contributor-audit narrative sentences) into signal-only clauses to lift conciseness toward a 5.

Consider extracting the per-PR scoring rubric (severity/mergeability/scope/locale/tests/contributor definitions) into a references/scoring-rubric.md so SKILL.md stays an overview and progressive disclosure reaches the 5 anchor.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in Phase 1 (e.g. confirm `gh` auth/scope before the batch scan, or abort with a clear message) so the batch gather step has a verifiable pre-condition like the PR-scoring phases do.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly lean and actionable with no padding about what gh, PRs, or scraping are, but a few prose clauses ('Stale-but-high-severity ranks higher than fresh-but-cosmetic', the contributor-audit narrative) could be tightened further. Not a 5 because a handful of explanatory sentences don't fully earn their tokens.

4 / 5

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready `gh` commands with exact `--json` field lists, a runnable `grep -E` locale-safety audit, numeric 1–5 scoring scales with per-level definitions, and concrete output table templates — fully executable with no pseudocode.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 4-phase pipeline (Gather → Score issues → Score PRs → Rank) with explicit validation checkpoints: locale/DOM-selector hard fails, test-coverage requirement, and a 'Never recommend merge as-is until checks pass' gate before the final ranking. Evidence-citation is enforced as a non-negotiable feedback loop.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into labelled sections (Inputs, Phase 1–4, Non-negotiables) with cross-links to sibling skills (/2-repro-issue, /3-verify-pr-fix) at one level deep, and no nested reference chains. Not a 5 because all guidance is inline in a single ~90-line file rather than split across reference files, and the under-50-lines simple-skill exception does not apply.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

A model description: concrete, repo-specific, with an explicit 'Use when' clause and natural trigger phrases that clearly delimit when the skill should fire. It also cleanly scopes output ('not a fix') to prevent overlap with downstream skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — scanning issues/PRs and ranking by three explicit axes (urgency, implementation quality, contributor track record) each broken into specific sub-signals like 'mergeability, CI, diff scope, locale-independence, test coverage'.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (scan and rank, output ranked list with rationale, 'not a fix') and when (a dedicated 'Use when the user asks...' clause with concrete trigger phrases).

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Embeds natural phrases a maintainer would actually say — 'what should I tackle first as core maintainer', 'which PRs are production-ready', 'triage backlog', 'scan open issues' — plus the broader 'maintainer-prioritisation question' synonym.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Pinned to one repo (stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server) and a narrow maintainer-triage niche with distinctive triggers, so overlap with other skills is minimal.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server
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.