CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

gitnexus-impact-analysis

Use when the user wants to know what will break if they change something, or needs safety analysis before editing code. Examples: "Is it safe to change X?", "What depends on this?", "What will break?"

67

Quality

80%

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/gitnexus/gitnexus-impact-analysis/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%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, action-oriented skill body with concrete tool invocations, realistic example outputs, a checklist, and a recovery loop. The main gaps are a lightly redundant final example and the absence of explicit verification checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., 'Confirm d=1 callers are covered before reporting risk') to push workflow clarity toward 5.

Trim or differentiate the final 'Example' section so it does not re-state the impact call already shown under Tools, removing the one conciseness redundancy.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean — tables, a checklist, and compact code blocks with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; only the final worked example re-walks the impact call already shown in Tools, a minor redundancy that keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully concrete, parameterized tool calls ('impact({target, direction, minConfidence, maxDepth})', 'detect_changes({scope})') with realistic example outputs and a stale-index recovery command, cleanly matching the 5 anchor's copy-paste-ready coverage of common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered 1-4 sequence plus a checklist and a stale-index feedback loop are present, but the only 'validation' is implicit risk assessment ('Assess risk and report'), so explicit verify-checkpoints are missing — this is a read-only analysis skill so the destructive cap does not apply, but it still lands at 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the ~90-line body is well-organized into clear sections (When to Use, Workflow, Checklist, Output, Risk, Tools, Example) with no nested references; because it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception and has no one-level-deep file references to signal, it sits at 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

77%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 strong description with explicit 'Use when' guidance and excellent natural trigger phrases quoted as examples. Its main weakness is that the 'what' frames the user's need rather than naming the skill's concrete action.

Suggestions

State the skill's concrete action directly (e.g., 'Runs impact analysis on code symbols to map dependents and blast radius') rather than only describing the user's need.

Add 1-2 more capability verbs (e.g., 'map blast radius', 'trace dependents') to lift specificity from naming the domain to listing several concrete actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (safety/impact analysis) and a couple concrete actions ('know what will break', 'safety analysis before editing code'), but stops at the outcome rather than listing several concrete capabilities, matching the 3 anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (safety/breakage analysis) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' plus trigger examples) are present, but the 'what' describes the user's need rather than crisply naming the skill's action, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Direct natural user utterances are quoted ('Is it safe to change X?', 'What depends on this?', 'What will break?') giving comprehensive, realistic trigger coverage — not merely above 4, it cleanly matches the 5 anchor's comprehensive natural phrasing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The impact/blast-radius niche is mostly distinct with specific triggers, but phrases like 'Is it safe to change X?' carry minor overlap risk with general code-review or refactoring skills, placing it at 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
tslateman/shipyard
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.