CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

health

Runs a budget-aware agent-assisted engineering health audit for instruction/config drift, hooks/MCP, verifier surfaces, and AI maintainability. Use when users ask in any language to audit Claude, Codex, Pi, agent instructions, MCP or hooks, verifier coverage, or AI-maintainability drift. Not for debugging application code or reviewing PRs.

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

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/waza/skills/health/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is health in tw93/Waza

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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, actionable audit skill body with a clear multi-step workflow and good reference hygiene for the references/ bundle. Main weaknesses are density-driven verbosity in the posture/scope/security paragraphs and dangling references to absent agents/ inspector files.

Suggestions

Tighten the Budget posture, Conversation scope, and deny-list floor paragraphs into terse rules or a table; move the multi-clause calibrations to references/ to reduce inline token load.

Resolve the agents/inspector-*.md references: either ship those inspector files in an agents/ directory or rephrase Step 2 so it does not point at non-existent paths.

Add an explicit pre-report validation checklist (e.g. 'all evidence classes populated; all launched inspectors reconciled or marked unreviewed') to lift workflow_clarity from a strong 4 toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and much of the dense content is specialized agent-infra knowledge Claude would not already know, but the budget posture, conversation scope, and deny-list floor paragraphs run long and could be tightened. Not a 4 because the over-explanation is more than minor; not a 2 because the verbosity is not padded with concepts Claude already knows.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, mostly executable commands throughout (PowerShell launcher, Bash collect-data.sh, conversation_audit.py invocation, copy-pasteable git rm finding). Not a 5 because of documented <skill-base-dir> placeholders requiring substitution and Step 2 references to agents/inspector-*.md files that are absent from the bundle.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear Step 0 / 1 / 1b / 1c / 2 sequence with explicit ordering ('run after collection and before the Step 2 analysis') and checkpoints (treat (unavailable) as insufficient data; reconcile all inspectors before declaring complete). Not a 5 because some validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit checklists; the report-only/read-only posture correctly avoids the destructive cap.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md acts as an overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to references/durable-context.md, references/long-running-agents.md, and references/maintainability-findings.md, all of which exist. Not a 5 because Step 2 also references agents/inspector-context.md, inspector-control.md, and inspector-maintainability.md, which are not present in the bundle, leaving a dangling navigation path.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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, third-person description that clearly states what the skill does, when to use it (with multilingual triggers), and what it is not for. Minor room to fold a few more natural synonyms/extensions from when_to_use into the description itself.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and multiple concrete audit targets (instruction/config drift, hooks/MCP, verifier surfaces, AI maintainability), giving several specific actions with only minor coverage gaps; not a 5 because the actions are variations of 'audit X' rather than a broader action set.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (budget-aware agent-assisted engineering health audit for listed surfaces) and 'when' ('Use when users ask in any language to audit...'), plus a negative boundary ('Not for debugging application code or reviewing PRs') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say (audit Claude, Codex, Pi, agent instructions, MCP, hooks, verifier coverage, AI-maintainability drift) with good coverage; not a 5 because some common synonyms and file extensions (e.g. AGENTS.md, config.toml, .claude) live in the separate when_to_use field rather than the description itself.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'agent-assisted engineering health audit' niche with specific surfaces plus the explicit 'Not for debugging application code or reviewing PRs' exclusion gives it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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
tw93/Waza
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.