CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

source-command-optimize

Analyze code for performance issues and suggest optimizations

Quality

77%

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/source-command-optimize/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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 content body is a lean, well-structured command template that provides specific, prioritized review criteria and an explicit output format with zero wasted tokens. Its only gap is the absence of a worked example showing the expected formatted response, which keeps actionability at 4 while the other dimensions score 5, yielding a normalized score of 0.925.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~25-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: a prioritized issue checklist ("O(n²) operations, inefficient loops", "unreleased resources, circular references") and an explicit response format, with no concept explanations or padding. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Actionability

The template gives a concrete, prioritized checklist with specific detection signals and an explicit output spec (severity, location, explanation, fix with code example), which is directly actionable for an instruction-only skill. It falls short of anchor 5 only because no worked example of the expected formatted output is provided.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple, single-purpose, read-only analysis skill under 50 lines, and the single action is unambiguous: review the five issue categories in stated priority order, then format the response. The destructive/batch validation cap does not apply, and the simple-skill exception yields a 5.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle exists), and the body is well-organized into an intro and a clearly-labeled Command Template section. Per the guideline for short skills, well-organized sections alone warrant a 5.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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 does but is uniformly mediocre across dimensions: generic action verbs, no "use when" trigger guidance, no synonyms users would naturally say, and overlap risk with general code-review skills. All dimensions land at the midpoint of 3, giving a normalized score of 0.5.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to optimize or speed up code, mentions performance, slow code, or efficiency, or asks to make code run faster."

Enumerate the concrete capabilities in the description to match the body's checklist, e.g. "Analyze code for performance bottlenecks, memory leaks, algorithm improvements, caching opportunities, and concurrency issues, and suggest prioritized fixes."

Include natural synonyms and phrasings users would say ("speed up", "make it faster", "profiling", "efficiency") to improve trigger matching and distinguish the skill from general code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Analyze code for performance issues and suggest optimizations" names the domain plus two actions (analyze, suggest optimizations), but the verbs are generic and the specific issue types (bottlenecks, memory leaks, etc.) are not enumerated in the description. This matches anchor 3 (domain and 1-2 concrete actions) — not 4, since it doesn't list several specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (analyze code for performance issues, suggest optimizations), but there is no "Use when..." clause or any trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the "when" is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "performance issues", "optimizations", and "code" are relevant, but common user phrasings such as "speed up", "make it faster", "slow code", or "efficiency" are missing. This matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations) rather than 4 (good coverage with a few missing).

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Analyze code" overlaps broadly with general code-review, refactoring, and simplification skills, though the "performance issues" scope narrows the niche. This matches anchor 3 (somewhat specific but could overlap with similar skills) — not 4, since no distinct trigger phrases differentiate it.

3 / 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/source-command-optimize/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.