CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

3-verify-pr-fix

Verify PR #N, does this PR fix #M, check the fix in #N, or test the candidate PR.

64

Quality

77%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/3-verify-pr-fix/SKILL.md
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.

The body is a tight, highly actionable verification workflow with strong sequencing and explicit validation/feedback loops for a risky operation; its only soft spot is minor over-explanation and the lack of any bundle files to demonstrate deeper progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly purposeful — direct bash commands and tight prose assume Claude's competence — with only minor explanatory asides (e.g., 'Absence of a local baseline limits the live branch...') that could be trimmed, fitting the efficient-but-slightly-trimmable 4 anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready bash for resolving the PR, diffing, guarded checkout, server startup with readiness polling, MCP initialize/tools/call, and cleanup, covering the common verification cases concretely.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced four-phase process with explicit validation checkpoints (dirty-tree guard, server-bound polling, protocol-error checks, cleanup trap) and feedback loops for a risky checkout/server operation, matching the top anchor despite the destructive nature.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into labeled sections with one-level-deep references signaled in prose (docs/scraping-architecture.md, /2-repro-issue, /tmp baseline files) and no nested reference chains; no bundle files exist to split, so it sits just below the idealized 5.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 specific and uses natural trigger phrasing with low conflict risk, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, leaving the 'when to use' guidance only implied and capping completeness at 3.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when ...' clause (e.g., 'Use when verifying whether a candidate PR fixes a linked issue, or when asked to test/check a PR fix.') to lift completeness.

Include a couple more natural trigger synonyms (review PR, validate the fix) to broaden trigger-term coverage toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several concrete actions — 'Verify PR #N', 'does this PR fix #M', 'check the fix in #N', 'test the candidate PR' — covering the verification space with only minor gaps, fitting the 'several specific actions' anchor rather than the fully comprehensive 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (verify/test a candidate PR) but the 'when' is only weakly implied through embedded trigger phrasings rather than an explicit 'Use when...' clause, so per the missing-trigger-guidance cap it does not exceed 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say ('verify PR', 'does this PR fix', 'check the fix', 'test the candidate PR') with good synonym coverage; a few common variations (e.g. 'review PR', 'validate fix') are missing, so it sits above 3 but below the comprehensive 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (verifying a candidate PR against a linked issue) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk, though it could brush against generic code-review skills, placing it just below the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

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.