CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

retro

Conduct a retrospective on a coding session.

Quality

71%

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 ./.agents/skills/retro/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is retro in mattpocock/skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 well-structured, token-efficient instruction skill: clear four-step workflow, concrete classification rules, and explicit per-category trigger conditions. The only weaknesses are unspecified mechanics for log searching and an undefined severity ordering when presenting candidates.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and imperative ("Default to building the check over writing the rule", concrete thresholds like "more than 1,000 lines"), with only minor over-explanation — e.g. the Files section briefly restates what CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md are, and a few parentheticals could be trimmed. Efficient with minor trims possible, not fully lean.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: an explicit tool call ("Call the Skill tool with `writing-for-agents`"), a specific first action ("Read the repo's own check command first (its `package.json`/build-tool `lint`/`check` scripts, its CI workflow)"), and a deterministic classification rule (mechanical violations get a linter/hook/CI check; judgement calls go to `CODING_STANDARDS.md`). Minor gaps: how to search session logs and what "order of severity" means are left unspecified.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Four steps in a coherent sequence with a default specified ("If the user doesn't specify a session, default to the current one"), and every category carries an explicit "_Use when_" trigger. This is an analysis/suggestion skill, so no destructive/batch validation cap applies; the missing definition of "order of severity" keeps it below 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (none exist in references/, scripts/, or assets/), and is cleanly organized into Steps, Reference, and Files sections; the only pointers (`writing-for-agents` skill, repo steering files) are one level deep and clearly signaled. Per the rubric's simple-skill note, well-organized sections alone earn 5 here.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

48%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 states a clear, distinct purpose but is a bare minimum: one generic action, no output specification, and no "Use when..." trigger guidance. It would benefit most from trigger phrases and a concrete statement of what the skill produces.

Suggestions

Add a trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks for a retrospective, retro, or post-session review of a coding session, or wants to improve the agent's environment after a run."

Specify the concrete actions the skill performs, e.g. "Analyze session logs, identify environment improvement candidates (navigation pointers, automated checks, coding standards), and present them ordered by severity."

Include natural synonyms such as "retro" and "post-mortem" so users' phrasing variations match the description.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Conduct a retrospective on a coding session" names the domain but offers only one generic action ("conduct"), with no mention of what the retrospective produces (analyzing session logs, proposing environment improvements). Matches the anchor "Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic"; not 3 because no concrete second action is listed.

2 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is stated clearly, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines; fits anchor 3 (clear what, missing when).

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"retrospective" and "coding session" are exactly the phrases a user would say, but no synonyms or variations appear ("retro", "post-mortem", "session review", "post-session analysis"). Some relevant keywords, missing common variations.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Retrospective on a coding session" carves a distinct niche with low conflict risk against other skills, but the absence of explicit trigger phrases leaves minor overlap risk with generic review/analysis skills. Mostly distinct.

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

tonykay/transcriber

Path

.agents/skills/retro/SKILL.md

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.